The study examined how a conversation partner’s gender and gender-language consistency influence communicators’ gender-based language (i.e., references to emotion and tentativeness) and gender identity salience. In an email exchange, an experiment manipulated an ostensible conversation partner’s gender and use of references to emotion in ways stereotypically consistent or inconsistent with the partner’s gender. The conversation partner’s gender and gender-language consistency affected communicators’ references to emotion in ways that generally confirmed hypotheses. Participants’ references to emotion were congruent with the conversation partner’s use of references to emotion regardless of participants’ own gender. Results pertaining to tentative language and gender salience demonstrated no substantive differences.
AriesE. (1996). Men and women in interaction: Reconsidering the differences. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
2.
BakemanR.GottmanJ. M. (1986). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
3.
CargileA. C.BradacJ. J. (2001). Attitudes towards language: A review of speaker-evaluation research and a general process model. In GudykunstW. B. (Ed.), Communication yearbook 25 (pp. 347-382). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
CarliL. (1990). Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 941-951.
5.
CouplandN.CouplandJ.GilesH.HenwoodK. (1988). Accommodating the elderly: Invoking and extending a theory. Language in Society, 17, 1-41.
6.
DragojevicM.GasiorekJ.GilesH. (in press). Communication accommodation theory. In BergerC. R.RoloffM. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of interpersonal communication. New York, NY: Wiley.
7.
FitzpatrickM. A.MulacA.DindiaK. (1995). Gender-preferential language use in spouse and stranger interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 18-39.
8.
GalloisC.OgayT.GilesH. (2005). Communication accommodation theory. In GundykunstW. (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 121-148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
GilesH.WillemynsM.GalloisC.AndersonM. C. (2007). Accommodating a new frontier: The context of law enforcement. In FiedlerK. (Ed.), Social communication (pp. 129-162). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
10.
HannahA.MurachverT. (2007). Gender preferential responses to speech. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26, 274-190.
11.
HoggM. 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.
12.
HydeJ. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581-592.
13.
HydeJ. S. (2006). Epilogue. In DindiaK.CanaryD. J. (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication (2nd ed., pp. 413-418). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
LakoffR. (1975). Language and women’s place. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
15.
LeaperC.AyresM. 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.
16.
MulacA. (2006). The gender-linked language effect: Do language differences really make a difference? In DindiaK.CanaryD. J. (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication (2nd ed., pp. 219-239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
MulacA.BradacJ. J.GibbonsP. (2001). Empirical support for the gender-as-culture hypothesis: An intercultural analysis of male/female language differences. Human Communication Research, 27, 121-152.
18.
MulacA.LundellT. L. (1994). Effects of gender-linked language differences in adult’s written discourse: Multivariate tests of language effects. Language and Communication, 14, 299-309.
19.
NgS.BradacJ. J. (1993). Power in language: Verbal communication and social influence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
PalomaresN. A. (2004). Gender schematicity, gender identity salience, and gender-linked language use. Human Communication Research, 30, 556-588.
21.
PalomaresN. 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.
22.
PalomaresN. A. (2009). Women are sort of more tentative than men, aren’t they? How men and women use tentative language differently, similarly, and counter-stereotypically as a function of gender salience. Communication Research, 36, 538-560.
23.
PalomaresN. A. (2010). Gender-based language use: Understanding when, how, and why men and women communicate similarly and differently. In HinnerM. B. (Ed.). The interrelationship of business and communication (pp. 135-148). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
24.
PalomaresN. A. (2012). Gender and intergroup communication. In GilesH. (Ed.), The handbook of intergroup communication (pp. 197-210). New York, NY: Routledge.
25.
PalomaresN. A.ReidS. A.BradacJ. J. (2004). A self-categorization perspective on gender and communication: Reconciling the gender-as-culture and dominance explanation. In NgS. H.CandlinC. N.ChiuC. Y. (Eds.), Language matters: Communication, identity, and culture (pp. 85-109). Hong Kong: City University Press.
26.
ReidS. A.KeerieN.PalomaresN. A. (2003). Language, gender salience, and social influence. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22, 210-233.
27.
ReidS. A.PalomaresN. A.AndersonG. L.Bondad-BrownB. (2009). Gender, language, and social influence: A test of expectation states, role congruity, and self-categorization theories. Human Communication Research, 35, 465-490.
28.
RobertsonK.MurachverT. (2003). Children’s speech accommodation to gendered language styles. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22, 321-333.
29.
ShepardC. A.GilesH.Le PoireB. A. (2001). Communication accommodation theory. In RobinsonW. P.GilesH. (Eds.), The new handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 33-56). New York, NY: John Wiley.
30.
ThomsonR.MurachverT.GreenJ. (2001). Where is gender in gendered language?Psychological Science, 12, 171-175.
