Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 37, Issue 11–12, pp 935–953 | Cite as

The effects of psychological gender orientations on the perceived salience of conversational constraints

  • Min-Sun Kim
  • Krystyna S. Aune
Article

Abstract

This study investigated psychological gender differences in the salience of conversational constraints. It was hypothesized that feminine self-orientations would correlate positively with concern for the hearer’s feelings and concern for avoiding negative evaluation by the hearer, and that masculine self-orientations would correlate positively with concern for clarity. Furthermore, we hypothesized that of the various gender-orientation patterns, androgynous individuals (maintaining high masculine as well as high feminine self-identity simultaneously) will have the highest importance ratings of all the constraints added together; i.e., higher than either undifferentiated (low masculine as well as low feminine self-identity simultaneously) or gender-typed individuals (either low masculine-high feminine or high masculine-low feminine). Partkipants consisted of undergraduate students from diverse ethnic backgrounds. After being presented with four conversational situations, participants rated the perceived importance of each constraint in relation to each situation. They then completed the Bem’sSex- Role Inventory to measure their psychological gender orientation. The results were mostly consistent with the hypotheses. Furthermore, the study showed that one’s psychological gender-role orientation is superior to biological sex categories in accounting for the perceived importance of conversational constraints.

Keywords

Gender Orientation Conversational Style Feminine Characteristic Psychological Androgyny Psychological Gender 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bateson, G., Jackson, D. D., Haley, J., & Weakland, J. H. (1963). A note on the double bind.Family Process, 2, 154–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bavelas, J. B. (1983). Situations that lead to disqualification.Human Communication Research, 9, 130–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bavelas, J. B., & Smith, B. J. (1982). A method for scaling verbal disqualification.Human Communication Research, 8, 214–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Brislin, R. W. (1992). The measurement of intercultural sensitivity using the concepts of individualism and collectivism.International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 413–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burggraf, C. S., & Sharkey, W F. (1986, October).An investigation of politeness as a means of reducing relationship clarity. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Communication and Culture, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  6. Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bern, S. L. (1975). Sex-role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 624–643.Google Scholar
  8. Bern, S. L., & Lenney, E. (1976). Sex-typing and the avoidance of cross-sex behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 48–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different?Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blum-Kulka, S., Danet, B., & Gherson, R. (1985). The language of requesting in Israeli society. In J. Forgas (Ed.),Language and social situation. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, R, & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.),Questions and politeness. Cambridge, London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Canary, D. J., & Hause, K. (1993). Is there any reason to research sex differences in communication?Communication Quarterly, 41, 129–144.Google Scholar
  13. Carli, L. L. (1990). Gender, language, and influence.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 941–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chodorow, N. (1978).The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and the sociology of gender. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. Consentino, R., & Heilbrun, A. B. (1964). Anxiety correlates of sex-role identity in college students.Psychological Reports, 14, 729–730.Google Scholar
  16. Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum?Psychological Bulletin, 80, 389–407.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eagly, A. H. (1987).Sex differences in social behavior A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125–145.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eakins, B. W., & Eakins, R. G. (1978).Sex differences in human communication. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  20. Fenigstein, A. (1984). Self-consciousness and the overperception of self as a target.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 860–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gilligan, C. (1982).In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gilligan, C. (1987). Moral orientation and moral development. In E. F. Kittay & D. T Meyers (Eds.),Women and moral theory. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  23. Greenblatt, L., Hasenauer, J. E., & Freimuth, V S. (1980). Psychological sex type and androgyny in the study of communication variables: Self-disclosure and communication apprehension.Human Communication Research, 6, 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greene, J. O., & Lindsey, A. E. (1989). Encoding processes in the production of multiple-goal messages.Human Communication Research, 16, 120–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.),Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  26. Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1985).Hidden differences: Doing business with Japanese. Garden City, NY: Anchor.Google Scholar
  27. Heilburn, A. B., Jr. (1976). Measurement of masculine and feminine sex role identities as independent dimensions.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 183–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Henley, N. M., & Kramarae, C. (1991). Gender, power, and miscommunication. In N. Coupland, H. Giles, & J. M. Wiemann (Eds.), “Miscommunication” and problematic talk. New-bury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Hofstede, G. (1980).Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Kagan, J. (1964). Acquisition and significance of sex-typing and sex-role identity. In M. L. Hoffman & L. W. Hoffman (Eds.),Review of child development research (Vol. 1). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  31. Kim, M. S. (1993). Culture-based conversational constraints in explaining cross-cultural strategic competence. In R. L. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.),Intercultural Communication Competence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Kim, M. S. (1995). Toward a theory of conversational constraints: Focusing on individual-level dimensions of culture. R. L. Wiseman (Ed.),Intercultural communication theories. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Kim, M. S., & Bresnahan, M. (1996). Cognitive bases of gender communication: A cross-cultural investigation.Communication Quarterly, 44, 53–69.Google Scholar
  34. Kim, M. S., & Wilson, S. R. (1994). A cross-cultural comparison of implicit theories of requesting.Communication Monographs, 61, 210–235.Google Scholar
  35. Kim, M. S. (1994). Cross-cultural comparisons of the perceived importance of conversational constraints.Human Communication Research, 21, 128–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kim, M. S., & Bresnahan, M. (1994). A process model of request tactic evaluation.Discourse Processes, 18, 317–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kim, M. S., Hunter, J. E., Miyahara, A., Horvath, A., Bresnahan, M., & Yoon, H. J. (1996). Individual-vs. culture-level dimensions of individualism and collectivism: Effects on preferred conversational styles.Communication Monographs, 63, 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kim, M. S., Sharkey, W. F., & Singelis, T. M. (1994). The relationship between individuals’ self-construals and perceived importance of interactive constraints.International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lakoff, R. (1975).Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  40. Lakoff, R. (1977). What you can do with words: Politeness, pragmatics and performatives. In A. Rogers, B. Wall, & J. Murphy (Eds.),Proceedings of the Texas conference on performatives, presuppositions and implicatures. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
  41. Leech, G. N. (1983).Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  42. Lykes, M. B. (1985). Gender and individualistic vs. collectivist bases for notions about the self.Journal of Personality, 53, 356–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. A. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.),Language and social identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  44. Maccoby, E. E., & Jackline, C. M. (1974).The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Sanford University.Google Scholar
  45. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Marsh, H. W., & Byrne, B. M. (1991). Differentiated additive androgyny model: Relations between masculinity, femininity, and multiple dimensions of self-concept.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 811–828.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Miller, J. B. (1976).Toward a new psychology of women. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  48. Mulac, A., & Lundell, T. L. (1994). Effects of gender-linked language differences in adults’ writing discourse: Multivariate tests of language effects.Language & Communication, 14, 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pearson, J. C. (1985).Gender and communication. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.Google Scholar
  50. Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (1979). The “good manager”: Masculine or androgynous?Academy of Management Journal, 22, 395–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (1989). The “good manager”: Did androgyny fare better in the 1980s?Group and Organizational Studies, 14, 216–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rancer, A. S., & Dierks-Stewart, K. J. (1990). Biological and psychological gender differences in trait argumentativeness. In L. P Stewart, S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.),Communication, gender, and sex roles in diverse interaction contexts. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  53. Schweder, R. A., & Bourne, E. J. (1982). Does the concept of the person vary cross-culturally? In A. J. Marsella & G. M. White (Eds.),Cultural conceptions of mental health and therapy. London, UK: Reidel.Google Scholar
  54. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1981).Narrative, literacy and face in interethnic communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  55. Sears, R. R. (1970). Relation of early socialization experiences to self-concepts and gender-role in middle childhood.Child Development, 41, 267–289.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Spence, J. T. (1984). Masculinity, femininity, and gender-related traits: A conceptual analysis and critique of current research. In B. A. Maehr & W. B. Maehr (Eds.),Progress in experimental personality research (Vol. 13). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  58. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conception of masculinity and femininity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 29–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Street, R. L., & Cappella, J. N. (1985). Sequence and pattern in communicative behavior: A model and commentary. In R. L. Street & J. N. Cappella (Eds.),Sequence and pattern in communicative behavior. Baltimore, MD: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  60. Thorne, B. (1986). Girls and boys together.... but mostly apart: Gender arrangements in elementary schools. In W. W. Hartup & Z. Rubin (Eds.),Relationships and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  61. Tannen, D. (1986).That’s not what I meant. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
  62. Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.),Theories in intercultural communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  63. Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Veenendall, R., & Braito, R. (1990). Androgyny in spouse interaction. In L. P Stewart, S. Ting-Tbomey (Eds.),Communication, gender, and sex roles in diverse interaction contexts. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  65. Weary, G., & Arkin, R. M. (1981). Attitudinal self-presentation. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. Kidd (Eds.),New directions in attribution theory and research (Vol. 3). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  66. Wheeless, V. E., & Duran, R. (1982). Gender orientation as a correlate of communicative competence.The Southern Speech Communication Journal, 48, 51–84.Google Scholar
  67. Whitley, B. E. (1983). Sex role orientation and self-esteem: A critical meta-analytic review.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 765–778.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wiggins, J. S., & Holzmuller, A. (1981). Further evidence on androgyny and interpersonal flexibility.Journal of Research in Personality, 15, 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wilson, S. R., & Putnam, L. L. (1990). Interaction goals in negotiation. In J. A. Anderson (Ed.),Communication yearbook 13. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  70. Wiseman, R., & Abe, H. (1986). Cognitive complexity and intercultural effectiveness. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.),Communication yearbook 9. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  71. Yarnold, P. R. (1990). Androgyny and sex-typing as continuous independent factors, and a glimpse of the future.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 407–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Yarnold, R. R., Nightingale, S. D., Curry, R. H., & Martin, G. J. (1991). Psychological androgyny and preference in loss-framed gambles of medical students: Possible implications for resource utilization.Medical Decision Making, 11, 176–179.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Min-Sun Kim
    • 1
  • Krystyna S. Aune
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of SpeechThe University of HawaiiManoa
  2. 2.The University of HawaiiManoa

Personalised recommendations