Two Key Studies of Gender & Communication (DP IB Psychology)
Revision Note
Key study one: Tannen (1990)
Aim: To look for communication differences in male-female couples in intimate relationships
Participants: Couples from the USA who were currently in an intimate relationship
Procedure:
Tannen carried out a series of recorded observations of each couple
These conversations were analysed to identify patterns of speech that showed differences in linguistic style
Results:
Tannen identified a range of gender differences in language, some of which are as follows:
Men interrupt more than women and they expect to be interrupted themselves
Women use a much more reciprocal style of conversation with turn-taking and conversational rules applying
Men use conversation to establish their status and independence; women use conversation to establish intimacy and connectedness between people.
A man doesn’t always like it when a woman is empathetic towards him, for example:
“Yes, I’ve felt like that too” in response to his feelings - he may think that she is ‘intruding’ upon his feelings, rendering them ‘just like hers’ and therefore not special or unique to him
Women may be baffled by this response as they may have shown empathy in order to understand, to communicate that negative feelings are permissible and that we all feel bad sometimes
Women do not appreciate men coming up with practical solutions to their distress or low mood, whereas a man may be oriented towards finding something he can do to help his female partner practically:
Women prefer men to listen to them when they are upset or unhappy about something
A man may try to find a pragmatic solution to her problem, leading the woman to think that he has missed the point, which is that she needs him to empathise, rather than try to find a way of solving the problem.
When women say ‘sorry’ they tend to use it as a way to express empathy:
‘I’m so sorry you feel bad/that this happened to you’
A man may hear ‘sorry’ as an apology, which he may think is a sign of weakness and so may avoid saying it
Women tend to use more language tags (really? uh-huh, right, no kidding?):
These tags serve as support to the main speaker, encouraging them in what they are saying and indicating that the communication lines are still open (Tannen calls this ‘overlapping speech’)
Women tend to be more inclusive, asking the other person’s opinion more than men do.
Conclusion: Men and women use language differently and for different purposes
Evaluation of Tannen (1990)
Strengths
The use of rich qualitative data gives this research depth and insight, being high in explanatory power:
Explanatory power means that the research can highlight why communication may be different depending on gender as well as what those differences consist of
The findings could be applied to therapeutic settings such as marriage counselling
Being able to apply findings is a type of external validity
Limitations
It is possible that some of the participants may have succumbed to the observer effect, giving responses that were self-conscious or contrived in some way:
The observer effect can lower the validity of the findings
The findings are broad and cannot account for individual differences in communication between males and females, for example:
Some women may interrupt others in conversation frequently
Some men are able to empathise
Some women may not use ‘sorry’ as a way of expressing empathy
Key study two: Cameron (2007)
Aim: To challenge the view that there are distinct gender differences in communication
Procedure:
A meta-analysis of 56 pieces of research into language and gender
The studies analysed in the meta-analysis all used recorded conversations between male and female pairs
Results:
Quantitative data in the form of effect sizes for variables linking gender to talkativeness, self-disclosure and interruption found the following:
A tiny effect size for talkativeness of 0.11 for women talking more than men in conversations
An almost zero effect size (0.02) for verbal reasoning i.e. no real gender difference
Men did not interrupt as much as previous research indicated (0.15 – 0.33 effect size)
Women’s self-disclosure was not much higher than men’s at 0.18 effect size
Men were only marginally (0.11) more assertive in their speech than women
Conclusion: Gender differences in language have been exaggerated
Evaluation of Cameron (2007)
Strengths
This research is in the form of a meta-analysis which means that the data used is objective and can include very large samples, thus increasing the reliability of the findings
Cameron’s findings help to explode some gender stereotypes, for example:
Men are not necessarily dominant and women are not necessarily submissive
There is more common ground between genders than previous research has indicated
Limitations
Secondary data is not subject to the same levels of control as is primary data:
Each study within the meta-analysis was conducted by other researchers, some of whom may have ‘cut corners’ as it were
Conversational style is highly subjective which makes it difficult to operationalise and measure which ultimately lowers the reliability of any quantitative research into the topic
Worked Example
ERQ (EXTENDED RESPONSE QUESTION) 22 MARKS
The question is, ‘Evaluate research into communication in personal relationships’ [22]’
This question is asking you to provide strengths and limitations on research into the role of communication in personal relationships. Here are two paragraphs for guidance:
The findings of Tannen (1990) are black and white e.g. men don’t say sorry, women are empathic which gives the research limited application to everyday life as not all men and women adhere to these patterns of communication. Not considering individual differences in communication style means that Tannen’s findings are over-generalised and conform to some stereotypical views of gender communication patterns.
Tannen’s research also lacks a cross-cultural perspective as it only focuses on the communication between couples from Western, individualistic cultures. In order to take a less universal , ethnocentric approach there should be similar research conducted from within cultures so that assumptions are not made about communication in relationships which have only been taken from one cultural perspective (see Ahmad & Reid, 2008 for research on the link between traditional marital expectations and listening styles in arranged marriage couples).
You've read 0 of your 5 free revision notes this week
Sign up now. It’s free!
Did this page help you?