Some Theoretical Implications of Female and Male Interaction in Unstructured Small Groups

Abstract

The contrasting assumptions and findings of three theoretical orientations frequently used to explain mixed-sex small group interaction are reviewed. Data from human relations training groups were analyzed to test sex-role differentiation theory hypotheses against alternative explanations grounded in role-status expectation and contextual role adaptation theories. Results did not support sex-role differentiation or adaptation orientations. Women were interactively dominant and more proactive and reactive to same-sex group members; men vacillated between attending to opposite-sex members or attempting global impact. Role-status expectation theory was advanced as the most appropriate explanatory framework for these results.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aries, E. (1976). Interaction patterns and themes of male, female, and mixed groups. Small Group Behavior, 7, 7-18.

Baird, J. (1976). Sex differences in group communication: A review of relevant research. Quarterly Journal of Speech 62, 179-192.

Bales, R.F. (1968). Interaction process analysis. In D. L. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences (Vol. 8, pp. 465-71). New York: Crowell, Collier and Macmillan.

Bales, R.F. (1970). Personality and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Bormann, E.G. , Pratt, J. , & Putnam, L. (1978). Power, authority sex: Male responses to female leaders. Communication Monographs 45, 119-155.

Bradley, P.H. (1980). Sex, competence and opinion deviation: An expectation states approach. Communication Monographs 47, 101-110.

Eskilson, A. , & Wiley, M.G. (1976). Sex composition and leadership in small groups . Sociometry 39, 183-194.

Frank, H.F. , & Katcher, A.H. (1977). The qualities of leadership: How male medical students evaluate their female peers. Human Relations 30, 403-416.

Mabry, E.A. (1985). The effects of gender composition and task structure on small group interaction. Small Group Behavior 16, 75-96.

10.

Mamola, C. (1979). Women in mixed groups: Some research findings . Small Group Behavior 10, 431-440.

11.

Meeker, B.F. , & Weitzel-O' Neill, P.A. (1977). Sex roles and interpersonal behavior in task-oriented groups. American Sociological Review 42, 91-105.

12.

Nemeth, C. , Endicott, J. , & Wachtler, J. (1976). From the '50s to the '70s: Women in jury deliberations . Sociometry 39, 293-304.

13.

Piliavin, J.A. , & Martin, R.R. (1978). The effects of the sex composition of groups on style and of social interaction. Sex Roles 4, 281-296.

14.

Strodtbeck, F. , James, R.M. , & Hawkins, C. (1957). Social status in jury deliberations. American Sociological Review 22, 713-719.

15.

Strodtbeck, F. , & Mann, R. (1956). Sex role differences in jury deliberations. Sociometry 19, 3-11.

16.

Winer, B.J. (1971). Statistical principles in expiremental design (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

17.

Yerby, J. (1975). Attitude, task and sex composition as variables affecting female leadership in small problem solving groups. Speech Monographs 42, 160-168.