This study examined gender differences in the style and content of e-mails and letters sent to friends on the topic of how time had been spent in the previous summer. Gender differences were found in both style and content supporting previous findings that female communication is more relational and expressive than that of males and focuses more upon personal and domestic topics. Women used the less formal stylistic conventions of e-mails to signal excitability in different ways to their male and female friends, whereas men ended their communications in a more relational way to their female than their male friends, and the nature of this difference varied according to the type of communication used.
Aries, E. J., & Johnson, F. L. (1983). Close friendship in adulthood: Conversational conduct between same-sex friends. Sex Roles, 9, 183-196.
2.
Baron, N. S. (1998). Letters by phone or speech by other means: The linguistics of e-mail. Language and Communication, 18, 133-170.
3.
Block, J. D. (1980). Friendship. New York: Stein & Day.
4.
Boxer, D.,& Conde, F. (1997). From bonding to biting: Conversational joking and identity display. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 275-294.
5.
Burgoon, J. K., Stern, L. A.,& Dillman, L. (1995). Interpersonal adaptation: Dyadic interaction patterns. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Colley, A.,& Todd, Z. (2002). Gender-linked differences in the style and content of e-mails to friends. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21, 380-392.
7.
Fitzpatrick, M. A., Mulac, A., & Dindia, K. (1995). Gender-preferential language use in spouse and stranger interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 18-39.
8.
Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y., Gadfield, N. J., Davies, G. J., & Davies, A. P. (1976). Cognitive aspects of humor in social interaction: A model and some linguistic data. In A. J. Chapman& H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research and applications(pp. 139-154). London: Wiley.
9.
Giles, H., Coupland, N.,& Coupland, J. (1991). Accommodation theory: Communication, context and competence. In H. Giles, J. Coupland, & N. Coupland (Eds.), Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics(pp. 1-68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Giles, H.,& Powesland, P. F. (1975). Speech style and social evaluation. London: Academic Press.
11.
Herring, S. (1994, June). Gender differences in computer-mediated communication: Bringing familiar baggage to the new frontier. In Making the Net*Work*: Is there a Z39.50 in gender communication? Panel conducted at the annual meeting of the American Library Association, Miami, FL. Retrieved from http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/gender/herring.txt
12.
Mehl, M. R.,& Pennebaker, J. W. (2003). The sounds of social life: Apsychometric analysis of students’ daily social environments and natural conversations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 857-870.
13.
Petrie, H. (2000). Writing in cyberspace: A study of the uses, style and content of email. Retrieved October 3, 2000, from http://147.197.156.163/NetResearch/Reports/Email%20Study/InitialReport.htm
14.
Rubin, D. L., & Greene, K. (1992). Gender typical style in written language. Research in the Teaching of English, 26, 7-40.
15.
Scully, D. (1998). Sport and exercise. In K. Trew & J. Kremer (Eds.), Gender and psychology(pp. 206-218). London: Arnold.
16.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: William Morrow.
17.
Thomson, R., & Murachver, T. (2001). Predicting gender from electronic discourse. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 193-208.
18.
Winn, L. L., & Rubin, D. L. (2001). Enacting gender identity in written discourse: Responding to gender role bidding in personal ads. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 20, 393-418.
