Based on self-categorization theory's explanation for gender-based language use, male and female participants sent e-mail on a masculine, feminine, or gender-neutral topic to an ostensible male or female recipient (i.e., intergroup or intragroup dyads). As predicted, the topic affected if and how men and women used tentative language differently: For masculine topics, traditional gender differences emerged (i.e., women were more tentative than men) in intergroup, but not intragroup, contexts; for feminine topics, differences were counterstereotypical (i.e., men were more tentative than women) in intergroup contexts only; and for a gender-neutral topic, no differences resulted in either intra- or intergroup contexts. Moreover, gender salience partially mediated these effects in intergroup interactions only: Topic affected tentative language through gender salience in the mixed-sex condition (i.e., a conditional indirect effect).
Aries, E. (1996). Men and women in interaction: Reconsidering the differences. New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
Berkowitz, L., & Donnerstein, E. (1982). External validity is more than skin deep: Some answers to criticisms laboratory experiments. American Psychologist, 37, 245-257.
3.
Bischoping, K. (1993). Gender differences in conversation topics, 1922-1990 . Sex Roles, 28, 1-18.
4.
Brouwer, D., Gerritsen, M.M., & De Haan, D. (1979). Speech differences between women and men: On the wrong track. Language in Society, 8, 33-50.
5.
Cargile, A.C., & Bradac, J.J. (2001). Attitudes towards language: A review of speaker-evaluation research and a general process model. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Communication yearbook 25 (pp. 347-382). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
Carli, L. (1990). Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 941-951.
7.
Cohen, J.C. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
Colley, A., Todd, Z., Bland, M., Holmes, M., Khanom, N., & Pike, H. (2004). Style and content in e-mails and letters to male and female friends. Journal of Language and Social Psychology , 23, 369-378.
9.
Cotter, D.A., Hermsen, J.M., Ovadia, S., & Vanneman, R. (2001). The glass ceiling effect. Social Forces, 80, 655-682.
10.
Crocker, J., & Luhtanen, R. (1990). Collective self-esteem and ingroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 60-67.
11.
Crosby, F., & Nyquist, L. (1977). The female register: An empirical study of Lakoff's hypotheses. Language in Society, 6, 313-322.
12.
Dovidio, J.F., Brown, C.E., Heltman, K., Ellyson, S.L., & Keating, C.F. (1988). Power displays between women and men in discussions of gender-linked tasks: A multichannel study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 580-587.
13.
Dubrovsky, V.J., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B.N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. Human Computer Interaction, 6, 119-146.
14.
Eagly, A.H., & Koenig, A.M. (2006). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: Implication for prosocial behavior. In K. Dindia & D. J. Canary (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication (2nd ed., pp. 161-177). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
Fishman, P.M. (1978). Interaction: The work women do. Social Problems, 25, 397-406.
16.
Fox, A.B., Bukatko, D., Hallahan, M., & Crawford, M. (2007). The medium makes a difference: Gender similarities and differences in instant messaging. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26, 389-397.
17.
Goldshmidt, O.T., & Weller, L. (2000). "Talking emotions": Gender differences in a variety of communication contexts. Symbolic Interaction, 23, 117-134.
18.
Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus. New York: Harper Collins.
19.
Haas, A., & Sherman, M.A. (1982). Reported topics of conversation among same-sex adults. Communication Quarterly, 30, 332-342.
20.
Hajek, C., Abrams, J.R., & Murachver, T. (2004). Female, straight, male, gay, and worlds betwixt and between: An intergroup approach to sexual gender identities. In J. Harwood & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 43-64). New York: Peter Lang.
21.
Hannah, A., & Murachver, T. (2007). Gender preferential responses to speech. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26, 274-290.
22.
Henley, J.M., & Kramarae, C. (1991). Gender, power, and miscommunication. In N. Coupland, H. Giles , & J. M. Wiemann (Eds.), "Miscommunication" and problematic talk (pp. 18-43). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
23.
Hills, M. (2000). You are what you type: Language and gender deception on the Internet. Unpublished bachelor's honors thesis, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. Retrieved April 17, 2008, from http://www.netsafe.org.nz/Doc_Library/Internet_language_dissertation.pdf
24.
Hogg, M.A. (1985). Masculine and feminine speech in dyads and groups: A study of speech style and gender salience. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4, 99-112.
25.
Hogg, M.A., & Reid, S.A. (2006). Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16, 7-30.
26.
Hogg, M.A., & Turner, J.C. (1987). Intergroup behavior, self-stereotyping and the salience of social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology , 26, 325-340.
27.
Jackson, J.M., Procidano, M.E., & Cohen, C.J. (1989). Subject pool sign-up procedures: A threat to external validity. Social Behavior and Personality, 17, 29-43.
28.
Janssen, A., & Murachver, T. (2004). The relationship between gender and topic in gender-preferential language use. Written Communication, 21, 344-367.
29.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and women's place. New York: Harper & Row.
30.
Leaper, C., & Ayres, M.M. (2007). A meta-analytic review of gender variations in adults' language use: Talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech . Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 328-363
31.
Lee, E.-J. (2005). Effects of the influence agent's sex and self-confidence on informational influence in computer-mediated communication: Quantitative vs. verbal presentation. Communication Research, 32, 29-58.
32.
Lee, E.-J. (2007a). Categorical person perception in computer-mediated communication: Effects of character representation and knowledge bias on sex inference and informational social influence. Media Psychology , 9, 309-329.
33.
Lee, E.-J. (2007b). Effects of gendered language on gender stereotyping in computer-mediated communication: The moderating role of depersonalization and gender-role orientation. Human Communication Research , 33, 515-535.
34.
Martin, R. (1997). "Girls don't talk about garages!": Perceptions of conversation in same- and cross-sex friendships. Personal Relationships, 4, 115-130.
35.
Muller, D., Judd, C.M., & Yzerbyt, V.Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852-863.
36.
Ng, S., & Bradac, J.J. (1993). Power in language: Verbal communication and social influence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
37.
Oakes, P.J. (1987). The salience of social categories. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 117-141). New York: Basil Blackwell.
38.
O'Barr, W.M. (1982). Linguistic evidence: Language, power, and strategy in the courtroom. New York: Academic .
39.
O'Kearney, R., & Dadds, M. (2004). Developmental and gender differences in the language for emotions across the adolescent years. Cognition & Emotion, 18, 913-938.
40.
O'Neill, R., & Colley, A. (2006). Gender and status effects in student e-mails to staff. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 360-367.
41.
Palomares, N.A. (2004). Gender schematicity, gender identity salience, and gender-linked language use. Human Communication Research , 30, 556-588.
42.
Palomares, N.A. (2008). Explaining gender-based language use: Effects of gender identity salience on references to emotion and tentative language in intra- and intergroup contexts. Human Communication Research , 34, 263-286.
43.
Palomares, N.A., Bradac, J.J., & Kellermann, K. (2006). Conversational topic along a continuum of perspectives: Conceptual issues. In C. S. Beck (Ed.), Communication yearbook 30 (pp. 45-97). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44.
Palomares, N.A., Reid, S.A., & Bradac, J.J. (2004). A self-categorization perspective on gender and communication: Reconciling the gender-as-culture and dominance explanations . In S. H. Ng, C. N. Candlin, & C. Y. Chiu (Eds.), Language matters: Communication, identity, and culture (pp. 85-109). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press.
45.
Pew Internet & American Life Project. ( 2003). America's online pursuits: The changing picture of who's online and what they do. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Online_Pursuits_Final.PDF
46.
Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2002). Behavior online: Does anonymous computer communication reduce gender inequality? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1073-1083.
47.
Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2007). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Manuscript submitted for publication. Retrieved October 17, 2007, from the Ohio State University, School of Communication Web site http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/ahayes/indirect2.pdf
48.
Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2008). Contemporary approaches to assessing mediation in communication research. In A. F. Hayes , M. D. Slater, & L. B. Snyder (Eds.), The Sage sourcebook of advanced data analysis methods for communication research (pp. 13-54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reid, S.A., & Hogg, M.A. (2005). A self-categorization explanation for the third-person effect. Human Communication Research, 31, 129-161.
51.
Reid, S.A., Keerie, N., & Palomares, N.A. (2003). Language, gender salience, and social influence. Journal of Language & Social Psychology , 22, 210-233.
52.
Reid, S.A., Palomares, N.A., Anderson, G.L., & Bondad-Brown, B. (in press). Gender, language, and social influence: A test of expectation states, role congruity, and self-categorization theories . Human Communication Research.
53.
Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R.L., & Rubin, D.B. (2000). Contrasts and effect sizes in behavioral research: A correlational approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
54.
Savicki, V., & Kelley, M. (2000). Computer mediated communication: Gender and group composition. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 3, 817-826.
55.
Shepard, C.A., Giles, H., & Le Poire, B.A. (2001). Communication accommodation theory. In W. P. Robinson, & H. Giles (Eds.), The new handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 33-56). Chichester, UK: John Whiley.
Tajfel, H. (Ed.) (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations . London: Academic Press.
58.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation . New York: William Morrow.
59.
Thomson, R. (2006). The effect of topic of discussion on gendered language in computer-mediated communication discussion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 25, 167-178.
60.
Thomson, R., Murachver, T., & Green, J. (2001). Where is the gender in gendered language? Psychological Science, 12, 171-175.
61.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (Eds.). (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. New York: Basil Blackwell.
62.
Walther, J.B. (1993). Impression development in computer-mediated interaction . Western Journal of Communication, 57, 381-398.
63.
Walther, J.B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.
64.
Wilkinson, L., & Task Force onStatistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist , 54, 594-604.
65.
Zimmerman, D.H., & West, C. (1975), Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation . In B. Thorne & N. Henley (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance (pp. 105-129). Newbury, MA: Rowley House.
