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 Mulac, A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Men's and Women's Talk in Same-Gender and Mixed-Gender Dyads: Power or Polemic?'

Communication Studies Program, University of Santa Barbara, California 93106, U.S.A.

One hundred and eight university students (54 men and 54 women) were recorded in 108, eight-minute, problem-solving interactions under two dyadic conditions: (a) same-gender, and (b) mixed-gender. Interactants were coded during each minute for: (a) amount of Talk, (b) Mean Length Utterance (MLU) and (c) Rate. MANOVA results for Talk indicated that men in mixedgender dyads talked more than did men and women in same-gender dyads, and they in turn talked more than women in mixed-gender dyads. For MLU, men consistently spoke in longer utterances, regardless of gender of their partner. No Rate differences were found involving gender. Additionally, when there was a control for interactant gender, individuals who talked more and in longer utterances were rated by their partners as higher in Dynamism, an operationalisation of power. Finally, multiple regression analyses indicated that the Talk and MLU differences found were more predictable on the basis of gender than Androgyny, Empathy or Social Desirability. The findings suggest that gender leads to differences in talk behaviour that are consistent with the appearance, but not necessarily the actual implementation, of power.

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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. B. Fox, D. Bukatko, M. Hallahan, and M. Crawford The Medium Makes a Difference: Gender Similarities and Differences in Instant Messaging Journal of Language and Social Psychology, December 1, 2007; 26(4): 389 - 397. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. Leaper and M. M. Ayres A Meta-Analytic Review of Gender Variations in Adults' Language Use: Talkativeness, Affiliative Speech, and Assertive Speech Personality and Social Psychology Review, November 1, 2007; 11(4): 328 - 363. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. A. Green The Writing on the Stall: Gender and Graffiti Journal of Language and Social Psychology, September 1, 2003; 22(3): 282 - 296. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Colley and Z. Todd Gender-Linked Differences in the Style and Content of E-Mails to Friends Journal of Language and Social Psychology, December 1, 2002; 21(4): 380 - 392. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Mulac, D. R. Seibold, and J. L. Farris Female and Male Managers' and Professionals' Criticism Giving: Differences in Language Use and Effects Journal of Language and Social Psychology, December 1, 2000; 19(4): 389 - 415. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Hannah and T. Murachver Gender and Conversational Style as Predictors of Conversational Behavior Journal of Language and Social Psychology, June 1, 1999; 18(2): 153 - 174. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. MULAC, K. T. ERLANDSON, W. J. FARRAR, J. S. HALLETT, J. L. MOLLOY, and M. E. PRESCOTT "Uh-huh. What's That All About?": Differing Interpretations of Conversational Backchannels and Questions as Sources of Miscommunication Across Gender Boundaries Communication Research, December 1, 1998; 25(6): 641 - 668. [Abstract]

				A. McLachlan Research Note: The Effects of Agreement, Disagreement, Gender and Familiarity on Patterns of Dyadic Interaction Journal of Language and Social Psychology, September 1, 1991; 10(3): 205 - 212.