Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The interpretation of messages is a mental process that necessarily accompanies communication. It is theoretically related to relational communication but includes both denotative and connotative meanings as well as speaker's intent. This study initiates a program of research on message interpretation by exploring the role ofgender, gender role, and values in interpreting messages. Of the subjects, 175 rated supportive and controlling interpretations of messages in four scenarios. Gender of subject, gender of the source of the message, communal gender role, and masculine values interact to influence message interpretation, but the type of interpretation depends on the scenario. Additionally, reported communication difficulty is greatest for opposite-sex communication for males, followed by opposite sex communication for females, same-sex communication for females, and same-sex communication for males. Gender processes are associated with the difficulty of same-sex communication; both gender and interpretive processes influence opposite-sex communication difficulty.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.

Broverman, I. K , Vogel, S. R. , Broverman, D. M. , Clarkson, F. E. , & Rosenkrantz, P S. (1972). Sex-role stereotypes: Acurrent appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 59-78.

Burgoon, J. K , & Hale, J. L. (1984). The fundamental topoi of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 193-214.

Burgoon, J. K. , & Hale, J. L. (1987). Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 54, 19-41.

Burgoon, J. K. , & Saine, T. (1978). The unspoken dialogue: An introduction to nonverbal communication. Boston: Houghton Mufflin.

Copello, A. G. , & Tata, P. R. (1990). Violent behaviour and interpretive bias: An experimental study of the resolution of ambiguity in violent offenders. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 29, 417-428.

Dix, T. , Reinhold, D. P. , & Zambarano, R. J. (1990). Mothers' judgment in moments of anger. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 36, 465-486.

Duck, S. , Rutt, D. J. , Hurst, M. H. , & Strejc, H. (1991). Some evident truths about conversations in everyday relationships: All communications are not created equal. Human Communication Research, 18, 228-267.

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

10.

Eagly, A. H. , & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 735-754.

11.

Epps, J. , & Kendall, P C. (1995). Hostile attributional bias in adults. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19, 159-178.

12.

Garlick, R. (1994). Male and female responses to ambiguous instructor behaviors. Sex Roles, 30, 135-158.

13.

Hecht, M. L. (1978). The conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 4, 253-264.

14.

Jackman, L. P , Williamson, D. A. , Netemeyer, R. G. , & Anderson, D. A. (1995). Do weight-preoccupied women misinterpret ambiguous stimuli related to body size? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19, 341-355.

15.

MacLeod, C. , & Cohen, I. L. (1993). Anxiety and the interpretation of ambiguity: A text comprehension study Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 238-247.

16.

Maltz, D. N. , & Borker, R. A. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 196-216). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University.

17.

Metts, S. , Cupach, W R. , & Imahori, T. T. (1992). Perceptions of sexual compliance-resisting messages in three types of cross-sex relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 56, 1-17.

18.

Motley, M. T. , & Reeder, H. M. (1995). Unwanted escalation of sexual intimacy: Male and female perceptions of connotations and relational consequences of resistance messages. Communication Monographs, 62, 355-382.

19.

Noller, P (1993). Gender and emotional communication in marriage: Different cultures or differential social power? Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12, 132-152.

20.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.

21.

Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Morrow.

22.

Tannen, D. (1993). The relativity of linguistic strategies: Rethinking power and solidarity in gender and dominance. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Gender and conversational interaction (pp. 165-188). New York: Oxford University Press.

23.

Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.

The Effects of Gender,Gender Role,and Values on the Interpretation of Messages

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References