Are Gender Differences Status Differences?

  • Cecilia L. Ridgeway
  • David Diekema
Chapter

Abstract

Are gender differences in interaction a result of women’s lower status and power in society as a whole? A number of researchers have argued that they are (Berger, Rosenholtz, & Zelditch, 1980; Fishman, 1978; Hall, 1972; Henley, 1977; Lockheed, 1985; West & Zimmerman, 1977; Zimmerman & West, 1975). To anyone whose motive for studying gender differences is to understand gender inequality, status explanations are powerful and appealing. They promise to explain how inequality in society structures interaction and how the resulting inequalities in interaction perpetuate gender stratification in society. The consequence is an increase in our understanding not only of interaction, but of the larger process of gender inequality.

Keywords

Task Group American Sociological Review Performance Expectation Status Explanation Expectation State 
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. Alexander, C.N., and Wiley, M.G. (1981). Situated activity and identity formation. In M. Rosenberg and R. Turner (Eds.), Social psychology: Sociological perspectives (pp. 269–289 ). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, L.R., and Blanchard, P.N. (1982). Sex differences in task and social-emotional behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 3, 109–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bales, R.F. (1950). Interaction process analysis. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  4. Bartol, K.M., and Martin, D.C. (1986). Women and men in task groups. In R.D. Ashmore and F.K. Del Boca (Eds.), The social psychology of female-male relations: A critical analysis of central concepts (pp. 259–310 ). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, B.J. (1986). Influence again: Another look at studies of gender differences in social influence. In J.S. Hyde and M.C. Linn (Eds.), The psychology of gender: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 178–209 ). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Berger, J., and Conner, T. (1974). Performance expectation and behavior in small groups: A revised formulation. In J. Berger, T. Conner, and M.H. Fisek (Eds.), Expectation states theory: A theoretical research program (pp. 85–110 ). Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.Google Scholar
  7. Berger, J., Conner, T., and Fisek, M.H. (1974). Expectation states theory: A theoretical research program. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.Google Scholar
  8. Berger, J., Fisek, M.H., Norman, R.Z., and Zelditch, M., Jr. (1977). Status characteristics and social interaction. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  9. Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S., and Zelditch, M., Jr. (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 479–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berger, J., and Zelditch, M., Jr. (1985). Status, rewards, and influence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  11. Borgatta, E.F., and Stimson, J. (1963). Sex differences in interaction characteristics. Journal of Social Psychology, 60, 89–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown, S.M. (1979). Male versus female leaders: A comparison of empirical studies. Sex Roles, 5, 595–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Butler, D., and Geis, F.L. (1990). Nonverbal affect responses to male and female leaders: Implications for leadership evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 48–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carbonell, J.L. (1984). Sex roles and leadership revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 44–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carli, L.L. (1982). Are women more social and men more task oriented? A meta-analytic review of sex differences in group interaction, reward allocation, coalition formation, and cooperation in the Prisoner’s Dilemma game. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  16. Carli, L.L. (1989). Gender differences in interaction style and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 565–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carli, L.L. (1990). Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 941–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cota, A.A., and Dion, K.L. (1986). Salience of gender and sex composition of ad hoc groups: An experimental test of distinctiveness theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 770–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Deaux, K., and Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dovidio, J.F., Brown, C.E., Heitman, K., Ellyson, S.L., and Keating, C.F. (1988). Power displays between women and men in discussions of gender-linked tasks: A multichannel study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 580–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eagly, A.H. (1983). Gender and social influence: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 38, 971–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eagly, A.H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Eagly, A.H., and Carli, L.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eagly, A.H., and Karau, S.J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 685–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eagly, A.H., and Wood, W. (1985). Gender and influenceability: Stereotype versus behavior. In V.E. O’Leary, R.K. Unger, and B.S. Wallston (Eds.), Women, gender, and social psychology (pp. 225–256 ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Fennell, M.L., Barchas, P., Cohen, E.G., McMahon, A.M., and Hildebrand, P. (1978). An alternative perspective on sex differences in organizational settings: The process of legitimation. Sex Roles, 4, 589–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fisek, M.H., and Ofshe, R. (1970). The process of status evolution. Sociometry, 33, 327–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fishman, P. (1978). Interaction: The work women do. Social Problems, 25, 397–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fleischer, R.A., and Chertkoff, J.M. (1986). Effects of dominance and sex on leader selection in dyadic work groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 94–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Foschi, M. (1988). Status characteristics, standards, and attributions. In J. Berger, M. Zelditch, and B. Anderson (Eds.), Sociological theories in progress: New formulations (pp. 58–72 ). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Foschi, M. (1990). Double standards in the evaluation of men and women. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association, Victoria, B.C., May, 1990.Google Scholar
  32. Hall, J.A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hall, K.E. (1972). Sex differences in initiation and influence in decision-making among prospective teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  34. Henley, N.M. (1977). Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  35. Hoffman, C., and Hurst, N. (1990). Gender stereotypes: Perception or rational-ization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hollander, E.P., and Julian, J.W. (1970). Studies in leadership legitimacy,influence, and innovation. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 33–69 ). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  37. Jones, E.E. (1964). Ingratiation: A social psychological analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  38. Jones, E.E., and Pittman, T.S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-Presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Kollack, P., Blumstein, P., and Schwartz, P. (1985). Sex and power in interaction. American Sociological Review, 50, 34–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lockheed, M.E. (1985). Sex and social influence: A meta-analysis guided by theory. In J. Berger and M. Zelditch (Eds.), Status, rewards, and influence (pp. 406–429 ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  41. Maccoby, E.E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A development account. American Psychologist, 45, 513–520.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Major, B., Schmidlin, A.M., and Williams, L. (1990). Gender patterns in social touch: The impact of setting and age. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 634–643.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Maltz, D.N., and Borker, R.A. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J.J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 196–266 ). New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  44. Meeker, B.F., and Weitzel-O’Neill, P.A. (1977). Sex roles and interpersonal behavior in task-oriented groups. American Sociological Review, 42, 9 1105.Google Scholar
  45. Megaree, E.I. (1969). Influence of sex roles on the manifestation of leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 377–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nyquist, L.V., and Spence, J.T. (1986). Effects of dispositional dominance and sex role expectations on leadership behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 87–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Piliavin, J.A., and Martin, R.R. (1978). The effects of sex composition of groups on style of social interaction. Sex Roles, 4, 281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pugh, M.D., and Wahrman, R. (1983). Neutralizing sexism in mixed-sex groups: Do women have to be better than men? American Journal of Sociology, 88, 746–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ridgeway, C.L. (1978). Conformity, group-oriented motivation, and status attainment in small groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 41, 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ridgeway, C.L. (1982). Status in groups: The importance of motivation. American Sociological Review, 47, 76–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ridgeway, C.L. (1983). The dynamics of small groups. New York: St. Martin’s.Google Scholar
  52. Ridgeway, C.L. (1988). Gender differences in task groups: A status and legitmacy account. In M. Webster and M. Foschi (Eds.), Status generalization: New theory and research (pp. 188–206 ). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Ridgeway, C.L., and Berger, J. (1986). Expectations, legitimation, and dominance behavior in task groups. American Sociological Review, 51, 603–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ridgeway, C.L., Berger, J. and Smith, L. (1985). Nonverbal cues and status: An expectation states approach. American Journal of Sociology, 90, 995–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ridgeway, C.L., and Johnson, C. (1990). What is the relationship between socio-emotional behavior and status in task groups? American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1189–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shackleford, S., Wood, W., and Worchel, S. (1989). How can low status group members influence others? Team players and attention getters. Unpublished manuscript, Texas A and M University.Google Scholar
  57. Smith-Lovin, L. (1988). The affective control of events within settings. In L. Smith-Lovin and D. Heise (Eds.), Analyzing social interaction: Advances in affect control theory (pp. 71–102 ). New York: Gordon and Breach.Google Scholar
  58. Smith-Lovin, L., and Brody, C. (1989). Interruptions in group discussions: The effects of gender and group composition. American Sociological Review, 54, 424–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Strodtbeck, F.L., and Mann, R.D. (1956). Sex role differentiation in jury deliberations. Sociometry, 19, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wagner, D.G. (1988). Gender inequalities in groups: A situational approach. In M. Webster and M. Foschi (Eds.), Status generalization: New theory and research (pp. 55–68 ). Stanford, CA: Stanford Press.Google Scholar
  61. Wagner, D.G., Ford, R.S., and Ford, T.W. (1986). Can gender inequalities be reduced? American Sociological Review, 51, 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wentworth, D.K., and Anderson, L.R. (1984). Emergent leadership as a function of sex and task type. Sex Roles, 11, 513–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. West, C. (1984). When the doctor is a “Lady”: Power, status and gender in physican-patient exchanges. Symbolic Interaction, 7, 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. West, C., and Zimmerman, D.H. (1977). Women’s place in everyday talk: Reflections on parent-child interaction. Social Problems, 24, 521–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wood, W., and Karten, S.J. (1986). Sex differences in interaction style as a product of perceived sex differences in competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 341–347. 180 Cecilia L. Ridgeway and David DiekemaGoogle Scholar
  66. Yamada, E.M., Tjosvold D., and Draguns, J.G. (1983). Effects of sex-linked situations and sex composition on cooperation and style of interaction. Sex Roles, 9, 541–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zimmerman, D.H., and West, C. (1975). Sex roles, interruptions, and silences in conversation. In B. Thorne and N. Henley (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance (pp. 105–129 ). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cecilia L. Ridgeway
  • David Diekema

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations