This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Edwards, R. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

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

Louisiana State University

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.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. Bello and R. Edwards Interpretations of Messages: The Influence of Various Forms of Equivocation, Face Concerns, and Sex Differences Journal of Language and Social Psychology, June 1, 2005; 24(2): 160 - 181. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Copeland E-Community Health Nursing J Holist Nurs, June 1, 2002; 20(2): 152 - 165. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Eckstein and A. Goldman The Couples' Gender-Based Communication Questionnaire (CGCQ) The Family Journal, January 1, 2001; 9(1): 62 - 74. [PDF]

				S. Takala and F. Kaftandjieva Test fairness: a DIF analysis of an L2 vocabulary test Language Testing, July 1, 2000; 17(3): 323 - 340. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. BELLO Determinants of Equivocation: The Influence of Situational Formality, Interaction Phase, and Ambiguity Tolerance Communication Research, April 1, 2000; 27(2): 161 - 193. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. B. Bavelas Theoretical and Methodological Principles of the Equivocation Project Journal of Language and Social Psychology, June 1, 1998; 17(2): 183 - 199. [Abstract]

				M. A. Hamilton and P. J. Mineo A Framework for Understanding Equivocation Journal of Language and Social Psychology, March 1, 1998; 17(1): 3 - 35. [Abstract]

				M. A. Hamilton Message Variables That Mediate and Moderate the Effect of Equivocal Language on Source Credibility Journal of Language and Social Psychology, March 1, 1998; 17(1): 109 - 143. [Abstract]