Advertisement

An Investigation into Gender Role Conformity in an Online Social Networking Environment

  • Alexander Fawzi
  • Andrea Szymkowiak
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8531)

Abstract

Social networking sites (SNS) offer a relatively novel arena in which to display and investigate social behavior. The study investigated consistency between social behaviors typical of traditional (offline) social interactions and those online by examining conformity to gender stereotypes in an online social networking environment. Findings from gender role conformity research based on traditional approaches provided a framework for analyzing online social interactions. Three predictions were derived: 1) females will display higher expression in status updates than males; 2) there will be a relationship between status update frequency and the amount of friends in an individual’s network; and 3) there will be an effect of gender on concentration of emotional expression within status updates. All three predictions were at least partially supported with significant differences apparent between males’ and females’ online behavior. The findings are discussed with respect to theories on gender differences.

Keywords

Social behavior gender role conformity internet-mediated research social networking 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Feldman Barrett, L., Robin, L., Pietromonaco, P.R., Eyssell, K.M.: Are Women the “More Emotional” Sex? Evidence from Emotional Experiences in Social Context. Cognition and Emotion 12(4), 555–578 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nobelius, A.: What is the difference between sex and gender? Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, http://www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/sexandgender.html
  3. 3.
    Eagly, A.H.: Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-role interpretation. Erlbaum Associates Inc., New Jersey (1987)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brannon, L.: Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity. In: Gender: Psychological Perspectives. 4/E, pp. 159–185. Pearson (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eagly, A.H., Wood, W., Diekman, A.: Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In: Eckes, T., Trautner, H.M. (eds.) The Developmental Social Psychology of Gender, pp. 123–174. Psychology Press (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Archer, J.: Sex Differences in Social Behaviour: Are the Social Role and Evolutionary Explanations Compatible. American Psychologist 51(9), 909–917 (1996)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hess, N.H., Hagen, E.H.: Sex differences in indirect aggression: Psychological evidence from young adults. Evolution and Human Behavior 27, 231–245 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Howe, J.: An Investigation into the Discourses of Secondary Aged Girls’ Emotions and Emotional Difficulties. University of Birmingham Research Archive: E-theses repository (2009), http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/325/1/howe09EdPsychD.pdf
  9. 9.
    Wood, W., Christensen, P.N., Hebl, M.R., Rothberger, H.: Conformity to Sex-Typed Norms, Affect and the Self-Concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73(3), 523–535 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Myers, D.G.: Theories of Emotion. In: Psychology: 7/E. Worth Publishers, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Snell Jr., W.E., Miller, R.S., Belk, S.S., Garcia-Falconi, R., Hernandez-Sanchez, J.E.: Men’s and Women’s Emotional Disclosures: The Impact of Disclosure Recipient, Culture, and the Masculine Role. Sex Roles 21(7/8), 467–486 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kivran-Swaine, F., Naaman, M., Brody, S., Diakopoulos, N.: Of Joy and Gender: Emotional Expression in Online Social Network. Squarespace (2012), http://funda.squarespace.com/storage/CSCW2012Poster.Pdf
  13. 13.
    Gross, R., Acquisti, A.: Information Revelation and Privacy in Online Social Networks (The Facebook case). In: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society, pp. 71–80 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    The British Psychological Society. Report of the Working Party on Conducting Research on the Internet: Guidelines for Ethical Practice in Psychological research online (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Glick, P., Fiske, S.T.: An Ambivalent Alliance: Hostile and Benevolent Sexism as Complementary Justifications for Gender Inequality. American Psychologist 56(2), 109–118 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pennebaker, J.W., Booth, R.J., Francis, M.E.: LIWC2007: Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count, Austin, Texas (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Daly, M., Wilson, M.: Evolutionary Social Psychology and Family Homicide. Science 242, 519–524 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cialdini, R., Kenrick, D., Neuberg, S.: Chapter 1 Introduction to Social Psychology (1999), http://www.scribd.com/doc/44045375/Introduction-to-Social-Psychology

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Fawzi
    • 1
  • Andrea Szymkowiak
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Abertay DundeeDundeeUK

Personalised recommendations