Robin Lakoff proposed that women are more likely than men to use tentative speech forms (e.g., hedges, qualifiers/disclaimers, tag questions, intensifiers). Based on conflicting results from research testing Lakoff’s claims, a meta-analysis of studies testing gender differences in tentative language was conducted. The sample included 29 studies with 39 independent samples and a combined total sample of 3,502 participants. Results revealed a statistically significant but small effect size (d = .23), indicating that women were somewhat more likely than men to use tentative speech. In addition, methodological moderators (operational definition, observation length, recording method, author gender, and year of study) and contextual moderators (gender composition, familiarity, student status, group size, conversational activity, and physical setting) were tested. Effect sizes were significantly larger in studies that (a) observed longer (vs. shorter) conversations, (b) sampled undergraduates (vs. other adults), (c) observed groups (vs. dyads), and (d) occurred in research labs (vs. other settings). The moderator effects are interpreted as supporting proposals that women's greater likelihood of tentative language reflects interpersonal sensitivity rather than a lack of assertiveness. In addition, the influence of self-presentation concerns in the enactment of gender-typed behavior is discussed.
AbelsonR. P. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 129–133.
2.
AndersonK. J.LeaperC. (1998). Meta-analyses of gender effects on conversational interruption: Who, what, when, where, and how. Sex Roles, 39, 225–252.
3.
AriesE. (1996). Men and women in interaction: Reconsidering the difference. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
4.
BenensonJ. F.NicholsonC.WaiteA.RoyR.SimpsonA. (2001). The influence of group size on children’s competitive behavior. Child Development, 72, 921–928.
5.
*BradacJ.MulacA.ThompsonS. A. (1995). Men’s and women’s use of intensifiers and hedges in problem-solving interaction: Molar and molecular analyses. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28, 93–116.
6.
*BrouwerD.GerritsenM.DeHaanD. (1979). Speech differences between women and men: On the wrong track?. Language in Society, 8, 33–50.
7.
BurlesonB. R. (2002). Psychological mediators of sex differences in emotional support: A reflection on the mosaic. Communication Reports, 15, 71–79.
8.
*CarliL. L. (1990). Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 941–951.
9.
*CaseS. S. (1988). Cultural differences, not deficiencies: An analysis of managerial women's language. In RoseS.LarwoodL. (Eds.), Women’s careers: Pathways and pitfalls (pp. 41–63). New York, NY: Praeger.
10.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11.
CrawfordM. E. (1995). Talking difference: On gender and language. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
*CrosbyF.JoseP.Wong-McCarthyW. (1981). Gender, androgyny, and conversational assertiveness. In MayoC.HenleyN. M. (Eds.), Gender and nonverbal behavior (pp. 151–169). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
13.
*CrosbyF.NyquistL. (1977). The female register: An empirical study of Lakoff 's hypotheses. Language in Society, 6, 313–322.
14.
DeauxK.MajorB. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369–389.
15.
DindiaK.CanaryD. J. (2006). Sex differences and similarities in communication. (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16.
*DixonJ. A.FosterD. H. (1997). Gender and hedging: From sex differences to situated practice. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 89–107.
17.
DuvalS.TweedieR. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56, 455–463.
18.
EaglyA. H. (1995). The science and politics of comparing women and men. American Psychologist, 50, 145–158.
19.
EaglyA. H.CarliL. L. (1981). Sex of researchers and sex-typed communications as determinants of sex differences in influenceability: A meta-analysis of social influence studies. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 1–20.
20.
EatonY. M.MitchellM. L.JolleyJ. M. (1991). Gender differences in the development of relationships during late adolescence. Adolescence, 26, 565–568.
21.
EggerM.DaveyS. G.SchneiderM.MinderC. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315, 629–634.
22.
FagotB. I. (1985). A cautionary note: Parents' socialization of boys and girls. Sex Roles, 12, 471–476.
23.
FishmanP. M. (1978). Interaction: The work women do. Social Problems, 25, 397–406.
24.
*GrobL. M.MeyersR. A.SchuhR. (1997). Powerful/powerless language use in group interactions: Sex differences or similarities?. Communication Quarterly, 45, 282–303.
25.
HallJ. A.MastM. S. (2008). Are women always more interpersonally sensitive than men? Impact of goal and content domain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 144–155.
26.
*HannahA.MurachverT. (2007). Gender preferential responses to speech. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26, 274–290.
27.
HannoverB. (2000). Development of the self in gendered contexts. In EckesT.TrautnerH. M. (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 177–206). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
HedgesL. V. (1994). Statistical considerations. In CooperH.HedgesL. V. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 29–38). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
29.
HedgesL. V.VeveaJ. L. (1996). Estimating effect size under publication bias: Small sample properties and robustness of a random effects selection model. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 21, 299–332.
30.
HenleyN. M. (2001). Body politics. In BranamanA. (Ed.), Self and society (pp. 288–297). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
31.
*HladikE. G.EdwardsH. T. (1984). A comparative analysis of mother-father speech in the naturalistic home environment. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 13, 321–332.
32.
HydeJ. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592.
33.
*JohnsonC. (1994). Gender, legitimate authority, and leader-subordinate conversations. American Sociological Review, 59, 122–135.
34.
*JohnsonC.FunkS. J.Clay-WarnerJ. (1998). Organizational contexts and conversation patterns. Social Psychology Quarterly, 6, 361–371.
35.
*KollockP.BlumsteinP.SchwartzP. (1985). Sex and power in interaction: Conversational privileges and duties. American Sociological Review, 50, 34–46.
36.
LaFranceM. (2001). Gender and social interaction. In UngerR. K. (Ed.), Handbook of the psychology of women and gender (pp. 245–255). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
37.
LakoffR. (1973). Language and woman’s place. Language in Society, 2, 45–79.
38.
LakoffR. (1975). Language and woman’s place. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
39.
LakoffR. (1977). Women’s language. Language and Style, 10, 222–247.
40.
LakoffR.BucholtzM. (Ed.). (2004). Language and woman’s place: Text and commentaries. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
41.
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.
42.
LeaperC.FriedmanC. K. (2007). The socialization of gender. In GrusecJ.HastingsP. (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 561–587). New York, NY: Guilford.
43.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis: Applied social research methods series. (Vol. 49). , Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
*MakayD. L. (1993). The impact of sex and gender on powerful/powerless language use and perceptions of credibility during an ongoing dyadic conversation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
45.
*MartinJ. N.CraigR. T. (1983). Selecting linguistic sex differences during initial social interactions of same-sex and mixed-sex student dyads. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 47, 16–28.
46.
*McFaydenR. G. (1996). Gender, status, and “powerless” speech: Interaction of students and lecturers. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 353–367.
47.
*McMillanJ. R.CliftonA. K.McGrathD.GaleW. S. (1977). Women’s language: Uncertainty or interpersonal sensitivity and emotionality?. Sex Roles, 3, 545–559.
48.
*McMullenL. M.VernonA. E.MurtonT. (1995). Divisions of labor in conversations: Are Fishman's results replicable and generalizable?. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 255–268.
49.
*MooreS. F.ShafferL.GoodsellD. A.BaringoldzG. (1983). Gender or situationally determined spoken language differences? The case of leadership situation. International Journal of Women's Studies, 6, 44–53.
50.
MulacA.BradacJ. J. (1995). Women's style in problem solving interactions: Powerless, or simply feminine?. In KalbfleishP. J.CodyM. J. (Eds.), Gender, power and communication (pp. 83–104). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
51.
MulacA.ErlandsonK. T.FarrarW. J.HallettJ. S.MolloyJ. L.PrescottM. E. (1998). “Uh-huh. What’s that all about?” Differing interpretations of conversational backchannels and questions as sources of miscommunication across gender boundaries. Communication Research, 25, 641–668.
52.
MulacA.LundellT. L.BradacJ. J. (1986). Male/female language differences and attributional consequences in a public speaking situation: Toward an explanation of the gender-linked language effect. Communication Monographs, 53, 115–129.
53.
*MulacA.SeiboldD. R.FarrisJ. L. (2000). Female and male managers' and professionals' criticism and giving: Differences in language use and effects. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19, 389–415.
54.
*MulacA.WiemannJ. M.WidenmannS. J.GibsonT. W. (1988). Male/female language differences and effects in same-sex and mixed-sex dyads: The gender-linked language effect. Communication Monographs, 55, 315–335.
55.
NewmanM. L.GroomC. J.HandelmanL. D.PennebakerJ. W. (2008). Gender differences in language use: An analysis of 14,000 text samples. Discourse Processes, 45, 211–236.
56.
O'BarrW.AtkinsB. (1980). “Women's language” or “powerless language”?. In McConnell-GinetS.BorkerR.FurmanN. (Eds.), Women and language in literature and society (pp. 93–110). New York, NY: Praeger.
57.
PalomaresN. A. (2009). Women are sort of more tentative than men, aren’t they? How men and women use tentative language differently, similarly, and counterstereotypically as a function of gender salience. Communication Research, 36, 538–560.
58.
*PrechtK. (2008). Sex similarities and differences in stance in informal American conversation. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12, 89–111.
59.
*ReidS. A.KeerieN.PalomaresN. A. (2003). Language, gender salience and social influence. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22, 210–233.
60.
*RubinD. L.NelsonM. W. (1983). Multiple determinants of stigmatized speech style: Women’s language, powerless language, or everyone's language. Language and Speech, 26, 273–290.
61.
*SayersF.SherblomJ. (1987). Qualifications in male language as influenced by age and gender of conversation partner. Communication Reports, 4, 88–92.
62.
*SmeltzerL. R.WatsonK. W. (1986). Gender differences in verbal communication during negotiation. Communication Research Reports, 3, 74–79.
63.
SmithP. M. (1985). Language, the sexes and society. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.
64.
SolanoC. H.DunnamM. (1985). Two’s company: Self-disclosure and reciprocity in triads versus dyads. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 183–187.
*StilesW. B.LyallL. M.KnightD. P.IckesW.WaungM.HallC. L.PrimeauB. E. (1997). Gender differences in verbal presumptuousness and attentiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 759–772.
67.
StroughJ.BergC. A. (2000). Goals as a mediator of gender differences in high-affiliation dyadic conversations. Developmental Psychology, 36, 117–125.
68.
TalbotM. M. (1998). Language and gender. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
69.
TannenD. (1994). Gender and discourse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
70.
ThorneB.HenleyN. (1975). Language and sex: Difference and dominance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
71.
TwengeJ. M. (2001). Changes in women's assertiveness in response to status and roles: A cross-temporal meta-analysis, 1931-1993. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 133–145.
72.
*WhitneyD. L. (1991). “Women’s” or “powerlesss” language in conversation: Gender, status, and attributional consequences (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.
73.
WoodJ. T. (2007). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture. (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
