Interpersonal Communication Competence

["98 | Interpersonal Communication Competence for this type of behavior. People do not commit criminal acts, or express extreme hate towards groups simply because they are anonymous. Some tendency or motivation to hate or harass others must precede the act. The social identity model of deindividuation e\ufb00ects (SIDE; Reicher et al., 1995; see also Spears & Lea, 1994) is useful to consider in this respect. SIDE proposes that anonymity can facilitate the enactment of salient aspects of one\u2019s social self. Rather than proposing that anonymity always leads to chaos and de-regulated behavior that is outside the boundaries of a person\u2019s typical behavioral repertoire, Spears and Lea (1994) proposed that anonymity of the self to others may liberate communicators to enact aspects of their identity that would normally be deemed unacceptable (Reicher & Levine, 1994 a,b). People therefore may choose to be anonymous to enact aspects of their self that are usually hidden. Indeed, the internet makes it possible for marginalized individuals to a\ufb03liate with each other (e.g., Back, 2002; McKenna & Bargh, 1998) so that they gain a sense of togetherness and solidar- ity. In this respect, therefore, the internet and email may simply exaggerate preexisting tendencies to behave in a certain way. This explanation might facilitate our understanding of \ufb02aming and also cyberhate. When people \ufb02ame others, particularly members of other groups, they may be expressing more extreme opinions of these groups because they cannot see who they are speaking about and therefore cannot individuate them (see Spears & Lea, 1994). The consequence of this may be that communicators express their preexisting stereotypes and beliefs more strongly. On the other hand, being able to openly express one\u2019s views in a visually anony- mous environment may allow people to express stronger views about groups than would normally be the case in face-to-face interaction, even when their identity is known (see Douglas & McGarty, 2001, 2002). In the case of cyberhate, the far-reaching and visually anonymous medium of the internet allows individuals and groups to express their strongly held opinions without the need to answer for these views. So, online hate groups may \ufb01nd an outlet to enact aspects of their identity and express their opinions because it suits a speci\ufb01c purpose (e.g., to recruit new members) and not simply because it allows them to behave in a random and antisocial manner. However, this broadly de\ufb01ned social identity explanation might also be useful in con- sidering online harassment. One recent study by Maass et al. (2003) is particularly useful to consider in this respect. Maass and colleagues examined male participants\u2019 tendency to sexually harass a female communication partner in a computer-mediated paradigm. Participants underwent a gender identity threat manipulation (or no threat in a con- trol condition), and were then given the opportunity to send pornography to a virtual female interaction partner. Results demonstrated that participants harassed the female more under conditions of identity threat than when there was no threat. However, more interestingly, this was primarily the case for high-identifying males\u2014i.e., males for whom being \u201cmale\u201d is very important. This \ufb01nding suggests that, at least in this experimentally controlled setting, males who strongly identify as males are more likely to harass a female partner when they are threatened. This is not to say that high-identifying males are more likely to harass women in general, but once a threat to their masculinity is issued, a preex- isting tendency to act in a gender-identi\ufb01ed manner might be brought out. Relating this","Antisocial Communication on Electronic Mail and the Internet | 99 back to the explanation of online harassment, it may be the case that individuals with a preexisting tendency to harass others may do so given the right circumstances. So it is not anonymity per se that makes people do bad things on the internet, but a combination of identity, motivation, and the circumstances that allow them to do so. CR In this [article], I hope to have provided an overview of some of the negative or \u201cdarker\u201d features of email and internet. Flaming, cyberostracism, cyberhate, and online harassment are all features of CMC that typical internet users would rather avoid. Explanations for these phenomena often implicate the medium\u2019s anonymity. According to this explana- tion, people are \u201cfreed\u201d from normal constraints on their behavior which might include concealing extreme views or holding back hostile feelings towards individuals or groups. Although other explanations can aid in our understanding of antisocial communication on the internet, it seems plausible to conclude that people\u2019s behavior on CMC re\ufb02ects \u201creal life,\u201d but in a more exaggerated fashion that is permitted by the features of the medium. People might conceal their dislike for others when speaking to their face, but not need to do so in CMC. Likewise, communicators might be free to express views that would normally meet with repulsion in typical conversational encounters. More damag- ing aspects of antisocial CMC such as harassment can also somewhat be explained using this reasoning. Preexisting attitudes and motivations, which can sometimes be socially undesirable, may come out when the context permits. However, an understanding of these understudied phenomena can only be gained through further research. Also, un- derstanding the underpinnings and the impact of negative online behavior will lead to an understanding of how these negative phenomena can be combated. This will indeed be a challenge for future research in this area. R Aiken, M., & Waller, B. (2000) \u201cFlaming among \ufb01rst-time group support system users.\u201d Information and Management, 37, 95\u2013100. Alonzo, M., & Aiken, M. (2002) \u201cFlaming in electronic communi- cation.\u201d Decision Support Systems, 36, 205\u2013213. Back, L. (2002) \u201cAryans reading Adorno: Cyber-culture and twenty-\ufb01rst century racism.\u201d Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25, 628\u2013651. Baruch, y. (2005) \u201cBullying on the net: Adverse behaviour on e-mail and its impact.\u201d Information and Management, 42, 361\u2013371. BBC Online (2002) \u201cyoungsters targeted by digital bullies.\u201d Retrieved from http:\/\/news. bbc.co.uk\/1\/ hi\/uk\/1929944.stm on 07\/08\/06. BBC Online (2006) \u201cCyber bullies haunt youth online.\u201d Retrieved from http:\/\/news.bbc. co.uk\/1\/hi\/ technology\/4805760.stm on 01\/11\/07. Davison W. P. (1983) \u201cThe third-person e\ufb00ect in communication.\u201d Public Opinion Quarterly 4, 1\u201315.","100 | Interpersonal Communication Competence Deiner, E. (1980) \u201cDeindividuation: The absence of self-awareness and self regulation in group mem- bers.\u201d In P. Paulus (ed.), The Psychology of Goup In\ufb02uence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Denegri-Knott, J., & Taylor, J. (2005) \u201cThe labelling game: A conceptual exploration of deviance on the internet.\u201d Social Science Computer Review, 23, 93\u2013107. Douglas, K. M. (2007) \u201cPsychology, discrimination and hate groups online.\u201d In A. Joinson, K. McK- enna, U. Reips & T. Postmes (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology. (p.155\u2013164), Oxford UK: Oxford University Press. Douglas, K.M., & McGarty, C. (2001) \u201cIdenti\ufb01ability and self-presentation: computer-mediated com- munication and intergroup interaction.\u201d British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 399\u2013416. Douglas, K.M., & McGarty, C. (2002) \u201cInternet identi\ufb01ability and beyond: A model of the e\ufb00ects of identi\ufb01ability on communicative behavior.\u201d Group Dynamics, 6, 17\u201326. Douglas, K.M. McGarty, C., Bliuc, A.M., & Lala, g. (2005) \u201cUnderstanding cyberhate: social competi- tion and social creativity in online white supremacist groups.\u201d Social Science Computer Review, 23, 68\u201376. Douglas, K.M., & Sutton, R.M. (2004) \u201cRight about others, wrong about ourselves? Actual and perceived self-other di\ufb00erences in resistance to persuasion.\u201d British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 585\u2013603. Duck J.M., & Mullin B.A. (1995) \u201cThe perceived impact of the mass media: Reconsidering the third person e\ufb00ect.\u201d European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 77\u201393. Finn, J. (2004) \u201cA survey of online harassment at a university campus.\u201d Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 468\u2013483. Frazier, P.A., Cochran, C.C., & Olson, A.M. (1995) \u201cSocial science research on lay de\ufb01nitions of sexual harassment.\u201d Journal of Social Issues, 51, 21\u201337. Gerstenfeld, P.B., Grant, D.R., & Chiang, C.P. (2003) \u201cHate online: a content analysis of extremist internet sites.\u201d Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 3, 29\u201344. Gruber, J. E. (1992) \u201cA typology of personal and environmental sexual harassment: research and policy implications for the 1990s.\u201d Sex Roles, 26, 447\u2013464. Gruter, M., & Masters, R.D. (1986) \u201cOstracism as a social and biological phenomenon: an introduc- tion.\u201d Ethology and Sociobiology, 7, 147\u2013158. Hiltz, S. R., & Turo\ufb00, M. (1978) The Network Nation: Human Communication Via Computer. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Joinson, A. N. (2001). \u201cSelf-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-aware- ness and visual anonymity.\u201d European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 177-192. Khoo, P. N., & Senn, C. Y. (2004) \u201cNot wanted in the inbox! Evaluations of unsolicited and harassing e-mail.\u201d Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 204\u2013214. Kiesler, S. (1986) \u201cThe hidden messages in computer networks.\u201d Harvard Business Review, Jan\/Feb, 46\u201358. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & Mcguire, T. W. (1984) \u201cSocial psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication.\u201d American Psychologist, 39, 1123\u20131134. Kraut,R.Patterson,M.,Lundmark,V.,Kiesler,S.,Mukopahdyay,T.,&Scherlis,W.(1998)\u201cInternetparadox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?\u201d American Psychologist, 53, 1017\u20131031.","Antisocial Communication on Electronic Mail and the Internet | 101 Lea, M., O\u2019Shea, T., Fung, P., & Spears, R. (1992) \u201c\u2018Flaming\u2019 in computer-mediated communication. Observations, explanations, implications.\u201d In M. Lea (ed.), Contexts of Computer-Mediated Communication. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1995) \u201cLove at \ufb01rst byte? Building personal relationships over computer net- works.\u201d In J. T. Wood & S. Duck (eds.), Under-Studied Relationships: O\ufb00 the Beaten Track. Under- standing Relationship Processes: Vol. 6. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lee, E., & Leets, L. (2002) \u201cPersuasive storytelling by hate groups online: Examining its e\ufb00ects on adolescents.\u201d American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 927\u2013957. Leets, L. (2001) \u201cResponse to Internet hate sites: Is speech too free in cyberspace?\u201d Communication and Law Policy, 6, 287\u2013317. Levin, B. (2002). \u201cCyberhate: A legal and historical analysis of extremists\u2019 use of computer networks in America.\u201d American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 958\u2013988. Linnho\ufb00, S., & Langenderfer, J. (2004) \u201cIdentity theft legislation. The fair and accurate credit transac- tions act of 2003 and the road not taken.\u201d The Journal of Consumer A\ufb00airs, 38, 204\u2013216. Maass, A., Cadinu, M., Guarnieri, G., & Grasselli, A. (2003) \u201cSexual harassment under social identity threat: The computer harassment paradigm.\u201d Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 853\u2013870. McDonald, M. (1999) \u201cCyberhate: extending persuasive techniques of low credibility sources to the World Wide Web.\u201d In E. Thorson, D.W. Schumann (eds.), Advertising and the World Wide Web. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 149\u2013157. McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (1998) \u201cComing out in the age of the Internet: Identity \u2018demar- ginalization\u2019 through virtual group participation.\u201d Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 681\u2013694. Milne, G. R., Rohm, A. J., & Bahl, S. (2004) \u201cConsumers\u2019 protection of online privacy and identity.\u201d The Journal of Consumer A\ufb00airs, 38, 217\u2013232. Moulton, M. (1998) \u201cReducing charges of e-comm harassment.\u201d Computer and Security, 17, 137\u2013142. Netsafe (2006) Retrieved August 22, 2006, from http:\/\/www.netsafe.org.nz. O\u2019Sullivan, P.B., & Flanagin, A. J. (2003) \u201cReconceptualizing \u2018\ufb02aming\u2019 and other problematic mes- sages.\u201d New Media and Society, 5, 69\u201394. Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998) \u201cDeindividuation, power relations between groups and the expres- sion of social identity: the e\ufb00ects of visibility to the out-group.\u201d British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 145\u2013163. Reicher, S., & Levine, M. (1994) \u201cOn the consequences of deindividuation manipulations for the strategic communication of self: identi\ufb01ability and the presentation of social identity.\u201d European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 511\u2013542. Reicher, S., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995) \u201cA social identity model of deindividuation phenomena.\u201d European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 161\u2013197. Reilly, M.E., Lott, B., & gallogly, S.M. (1986) \u201cSexual harassment of university students.\u201d Sex Roles, 15, 333\u2013358. Rice, R.E. (1987) \u201cComputer-mediated communication and organizational innovation.\u201d Journal of Communication, 37, 65\u201394.","102 | Interpersonal Communication Competence Schafer, J.A. (2002) \u201cSpinning the web of hate; web-based hate propagation by extremist organiza- tions.\u201d Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 9, 69\u201388. Seddon, A.E. (2002) \u201cCyberterrorism: Are we under siege?\u201d American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 1033\u20131043. Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & Mcguire, T.W. (1986) \u201cgroup processes in computer-mediated communication.\u201d Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157\u2013187. Siegel, M.L. (1999) \u201cHate speech, civil rights and the Internet: The jurisdictional and human rights nightmare.\u201d Albany Journal of Science and Technology, 9, 375\u2013398. Sovern, J. (2004) \u201cStopping identity theft.\u201d The Journal of Consumer A\ufb00airs, 38, 233\u2013243. Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994) \u201cPanacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication.\u201d Communication Research, 21, 427\u2013459. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986) \u201cReducing Social Context Cues: e.lectronic Mail in Organizational Communication.\u201d Management Science, 32, 1492\u20131512. Sta\ufb00ord, M.R. (2004) \u201cIdentity theft: Laws, crimes and victims.\u201d The Journal of Consumer A\ufb00airs, 38, 201\u2013203. The Hate Directory (2006) Retrieved August 22, 2006, from http:\/\/www.bcpl.net\/~rfrankli\/hatedir. pdf. Turpin-Petrosino, C. (2002) \u201cHateful sirens \u2026 who hears their song?: an examination of student at- titudes towards hate groups and a\ufb03liation potential.\u201d Journal of Social Issues, 58, 281\u2013301. van Gelder, L. (1985) \u201cThe strange case of the electronic lover.\u201d Ms Magazine, October. Reprinted in C. Dunlop and R. Kling (eds.), Computerization and Controversy: Value Con\ufb02icts and Social Choices. San Diego, CA: Academic Press (1991). Walther, J.B., Anderson, J.F., & Park, D. (1994) \u201cInterpersonal e\ufb00ects in computer-mediated inter- action: A meta-analysis of social and anti-social communication.\u201d Communication Research, 21, 460\u2013487. Williams, K.D. (1997) \u201cSocial ostracism.\u201d In R. Kowalski (ed.), Aversive Interpersonal Behaviours. New York: Plenum, pp. 133\u2013170. Williams, K.D., Cheung, K.T., & Choi, W. (2000) \u201cCyberostracism: E\ufb00ects of being ignored over the Internet.\u201d Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748\u2013762. Working to Halt Online Abuse (2006) Retrieved August 22 2006 from http:\/\/www.haltabuse.org. Ybarra, M.L., & Mitchell, K.J. (2004) \u201cyouth engaging in online harassment: Associations with caregiver-child relationships, Internet use, and personal characteristics.\u201d Journal of Adolescence, 27, 319\u2013336. Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2004) \u201cHow low can you go? Ostracism by a computer is su\ufb03cient to lower self-reported levels of belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence.\u201d Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 560\u2013567. Zickmund,S.(1997)\u201cApproachingtheradicalother:thediscursivecultureofcyberhate.\u201dInS.G.Jones(ed.), Virtual Culture: Identity and Communication in Cybersociety. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 185\u2013205. Zimbardo, P. G. (1969) \u201cThe human choice: individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos.\u201d In W. J. Arnold and D. Levine (eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 17. Lincoln ne: University of Nebraska Press.","DO MEN AND WOMEN COMMUNICATE DIFFERENTLY? By Peter Hartley I n this chapter, I shall: \u2022 highlight the most di\ufb03cult and controversial aspects of this topic \u2022 review the argument that language is inherently sexist, and brie\ufb02y look at how language does represent the world in terms of gender \u2022 examine evidence and research which suggests that men and women do behave di\ufb00erently when they communicate \u2022 examine contrasting theories to explain possible di\ufb00erences, with particular emphasis on current popular theories \u2022 identify the major implications of current popular views W IT T S C ? One of the problems in researching this topic is that the views and attitudes we have about gender di\ufb00erences are often felt very strongly. This is not surprising when you review the very real discrimination which women had to endure in the past. Consider the following advice from a 1941 etiquette book: Once during an evening is enough for a woman to state a de\ufb01nite and unquali\ufb01ed opinion. This example was quoted by a newspaper feature which interviewed women who studied at Cambridge University during the \u2018days of discrimination\u2019.1 It is worth remembering just how badly women were treated in comparison with their male counterparts\u2014and this is only \ufb01fty or sixty years ago! The feature contained many examples of blatant discrimination, including: \u2022 the Head of English who would shout \u2018I spy strangers\u2019 if he saw women stu- dents in his lectures and who would refuse to continue till they left \u2022 the student who remembered that \u2018men never had to make their own beds or do their own chores, as we did\u2019 103","104 | Interpersonal Communication Competence \u2022 the fact that, before 1948, female students who graduated were not allowed to at- tend a graduation ceremony Of course, the social context has changed, but the debate over male and female charac- teristics still generates strong opinions. As I was doing the \ufb01nal editing on this chapter, the British press reported an \u2018explosive piece of research\u2019 which suggests that \u2018successful female bosses \u2026 are no di\ufb00erent in performance or style from their male counterparts\u2019.2 This is contrasted with the alternative view that women bosses have speci\ufb01c advantages over their male counterparts in modern organisations: \u2018they are relationship-oriented, not interested in traditional bureaucracy, able to juggle several tasks and good at sharing power\u2019. I cannot resolve this debate within this chapter but I can highlight the very strong and contrasting opinions expressed in this article, which range from strong support to equally strong disbelief. There is also an interpretation which suggests that this research has ulterior motivation, i.e. it shows that \u2018men are getting frightened\u2019 by female progress in the workplace. Because of these divided opinions and strong feelings, we need to be very careful when we review the research evidence. Research studies have suggested a number of di\ufb00er- ences between males and females in their communication. This has included areas such as NVC, use of power and in\ufb02uence, strategies, and conversational style. And there are also reported di\ufb00erences which relate to perceptions and expectations. The way males and females report how they communicate, and the way males and females are perceived by others to communicate, can also di\ufb00er.3 However, you should approach these studies with extreme caution for at least two fundamental reasons, both of which will crop up again later in this chapter: 1. Stereotyping Discussions of male\/female di\ufb00erences often seem to rely on social ste- reotypes rather than direct observations. This is especially unfortunate at a time when traditional sex roles and stereotypes seem to be in a greater state of \ufb02ux or change than has been the case for some time. 2. Methodology Many of the often-quoted studies in this area are very limited in terms of their procedures and choice of subjects. IL I S? This view has been very powerfully expressed by authors like Dale Spender.4 There are three main parts to her argument: 1. The language we use determines our world-view. 2. Meanings are invented and controlled by men. 3. Language is usually used \u2018oppressively\u2019, as when \u2018he\u2019 is used to cover both genders. The idea that our language can determine our world-view is one perspective on the rela- tionship between language and culture. If we look at how language re\ufb02ects our culture, then we can certainly \ufb01nd quite a large proportion of our everyday vocabulary which is, in some way, culture speci\ufb01c. For example, Hudson lists several English words which are","Do Men and Women Communicate Differently? | 105 di\ufb03cult if not impossible to translate directly into French, including brown, chair and carpet.5 But does this mean that French speakers have no conception of a carpet or do they just use di\ufb00erent expressions? Hudson also comments on the surprising di\ufb00erences you can \ufb01nd between dialects. For example, he compares Irish English with mainland English. The common mainland expression \u2018I have known\u2019 has no direct equivalent in the Irish dialect. To say \u2018I have known his family all my life\u2019, the Irish dialect uses a di\ufb00erent form\u2014\u2018I know his family all me life\u2019. But do these di\ufb00erences re\ufb02ect di\ufb00erent thought processes? We can \ufb01nd even more dramatic di\ufb00erences when we compare languages from very di\ufb00erent cultures. However, we can also \ufb01nd very di\ufb00erent uses of language which refer to much the same concept in di\ufb00erent cultures. The claim that language determines thought is often referred to as the Sapir\u2013Whorf hy- pothesis, after the two anthropologists whose early research tended to support this claim. Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Lee Whorf researched American Indian languages and concluded that the grammar of a language had a very powerful e\ufb00ect upon how the people thought, that it was \u2018the shaper of ideas\u2019.6 For example, if you ask a Navaho Indian to hand you something then you use a di\ufb00erent Navaho word depending on whether the object is long and \ufb02exible like string, long and rigid like a stick, or \ufb02at and \ufb02exible like paper or cloth. This means that the Navaho language forces its users to pay attention to the shapes of objects in ways which are completely ignored by the English verb \u2018hand\u2019. Studies of the consequences of this language di\ufb00erence do suggest that it makes some di\ufb00erence to the way people think\u2014Navaho-speaking children are much more sensitive to shape than their English-speaking counterparts. However, current researchers view language and grammar as only one of many in\ufb02uences upon our thought processes. Close study of the rather stereotyped and sexist language often used in dictionaries (usually if not exclusively written by males) supports the notion that meanings have been invented and controlled by men. There is a recent example which suggests things may be changing. The French Academy is the body in France which has tried to \u2018protect\u2019 the French language from \u2018pollution\u2019 by the adoption of foreign terms and expressions such as Americanisms. They have protested loudly over the decision by female government minis- ters to call themselves \u2018la\u2019 minister (as opposed to \u2018le\u2019). The problem for language purists is that French nouns are classed as male or female, and minister is normally a male noun. The Academy has called upon the ministers concerned to revert back to the male form of the noun\u2014but I suspect that this is one battle which they will not win. This also relates to the further part of Spender\u2019s argument, that language is consistently used in an oppressive way. Hudson identi\ufb01es two general tendencies which can reinforce prejudice and bias against women.4 The \ufb01rst covers all those words which apply to one gender or the other and where the female version has a less positive or negative meaning. For example, compare \u2018master\u2019 and \u2018mistress\u2019. The male meaning is positive and good while the female meaning is bad or derogatory. For another related example, how many English words can you think of to describe a sexually promiscuous woman? Now think of how many words there are to describe a sexually promiscuous man. You will be able to con- struct two lists\u2014the female one will be much longer, possibly up to ten times longer! The other tendency is where we use a word which is supposed to apply equally to both genders","106 | Interpersonal Communication Competence but is often quali\ufb01ed to show that the female form is somehow unusual. For example, why do we talk of a woman doctor but never a man doctor? Although this analysis does support the idea that there are some consistent biases expressed in language, this does not mean that language is the problem. Consider the following brief reports from two British national newspapers: A man who su\ufb00ered head injuries when attacked by two men who broke into his home in Beckenham, Kent, early yesterday, was pinned down on the bed by intruders who took it in turn to rape his wife. (Daily Telegraph) A terri\ufb01ed 19-stone husband was forced to lie next to his wife as two men raped her yesterday. (Sun) Both these examples are used by Deborah Cameron to suggest that it is not necessarily language in itself which is at fault.7 Compare the very di\ufb00erent representations of the hus- band and wife in both these accounts. The focus in both is on the male and his feelings and injuries. The fact that his wife su\ufb00ered much more serious injury and trauma is presented almost as an afterthought. The way that the language is used\u2014the sentence structure, the use of adjectives, the ordering of the events\u2014supports a male-oriented interpretation of this event. The language is used to re\ufb02ect the perception rather than driving it. In other words, if people have a prejudiced or biased view of the world then they will use language to support these views. We need to consider broader issues of representation, the in\ufb02uence of the social context, how values and attitudes are expressed, and how assumptions are expressed. So can we \u2018reform\u2019 language to avoid such bias? There have certainly been concerted attempts to revise words or introduce new expressions to shift the balance. Examples would be the use of new terms like \u2018Ms\u2019 or supposedly neutral terms like \u2018chairperson\u2019 or \u2018chair\u2019 to replace terms like chairman which seem to re\ufb02ect male dominance. However, we can \ufb01nd that these strategies are often only used when there is a woman involved\u2014 chairman means male and chair or chairperson means female\u2014rather than being used to refer equally to males. This suggests that equality still has a long way to go. Do Men and Women Behave Differently When They Communicate? Many texts provide detailed lists of di\ufb00erences. These are often based on the work of Robin Lako\ufb00 who suggested that women use language di\ufb00erently in the following ways:8 \u2022 Women make much less use of specialised vocabularies. They use fewer technical expressions. \u2022 Women use expletives di\ufb00erently. They use far fewer obscenities and swear words. \u2022 Women use di\ufb00erent patterns of intonation. They speak in a softer and less \u2018dramatic\u2019 way.","Do Men and Women Communicate Differently? | 107 \u2022 Women are much more likely to be \u2018superpolite\u2019? They tend to be \u2018overcorrect\u2019 in following social rules. \u2022 Women use what is known as \u2018hedges\u2019 more often. They are much more likely to embellish what they say with hedges such as \u2018well\u2019, \u2018kinda\u2019, \u2018y\u2019know\u2019. \u2022 Women use jokes and humour di\ufb00erently. They are much less likely than men to tell jokes. \u2022 Women use more tags. Tags are an interesting example which is worth discussing in more detail. Examples of tags are \u2018he\u2019s been drinking again, hasn\u2019t he?\u2019; \u2018the way prices are rising is horrendous, isn\u2019t it?\u2019; \u2018you were missing last week, weren\u2019t you?\u2019; and \u2018open the door for me, could you?\u2019. Not only are women supposed to use more tags but other research suggests they usually use them di\ufb00erently. According to Janet Holmes, men use more \u2018modal\u2019 tags.9 These tags are used to encourage the other speaker to supply further information, as in the \u2018hasn\u2019t he\u2019 and \u2018isn\u2019t it\u2019 examples above. On the other hand, women seem to use more a\ufb00ective tags, which express feelings of togetherness and belonging. This sort of research is usually used to justify the claim that women have a \u2018weak, hesitant and powerless\u2019 style of speech. But have we enough evidence to decide? There are several reasons why we need to be suspicious of the existing research and the typical conclusions, as follows. We Do Not Have Enough \u2018Everyday\u2019 Research? There are di\ufb00erent interpretations of the research, e.g. on tags. For instance, the results may re\ufb02ect gender-role expectations\u2014women may feel obliged to act that way to conform to the common female stereotype. The results may re\ufb02ect the conversational role which the women took on, e.g. the women acted as \u2018carers\u2019 in the group and their language re\ufb02ects this role. The results may simply be the result of actual power relations in the situation. Other limitations in some of the existing research are that it often fails to take account of participants\u2019 goals and strategies. It also often fails to recognise that the same feature might mean something di\ufb00erent in di\ufb00erent situations. A couple of other lines of research, as follows, will illustrate that this topic is by no means as cut and dried as some introductory texts suggest. The Sex Prestige Pattern I have already talked about status di\ufb00erences in language, as in the di\ufb00erence between RP and regional dialects in English. In many other societies, there is an important status distinction between the standard form of the language and the non-standard forms. Several studies have shown that, where there are these two forms of the language, then women will tend to use the high-status form much more than men. This generalisation seems to hold true for all social classes. In societies where it does not seem to happen then there may well be other forces at work. For example, in some countries women have far less access to education. As a result they will have far less opportunity to learn","108 | Interpersonal Communication Competence the standard form of the language through their education. But how do we explain such a pattern? Is it because women are behaving atypically, or do we need an explanation which looks at male behaviour? Does this simply re\ufb02ect a male tendency to use more non-standard forms? What Do Interruptions Really Mean? One very in\ufb02uential study by West and Zimmerman suggested that men interrupt women in conversation more than expected.10 They concluded that men were responsible for 96 per cent of interruptions in conversation between men and women. This \ufb01nding can of course be interpreted as evidence of domination and social power: those with power and status talk more and interrupt more. It is worth looking at this study in some detail as it illustrates some of the di\ufb03culties of investigating this topic. Ellis and Beattie question how far we can generalise the results from this study on a number of grounds:11 \u2022 The limited sample of subjects\u2014all were middle class, under 35 and white. \u2022 The limited nature of the conversations\u2014all were two-person settings and only consisted of \u2018everyday chit-chat\u2019. \u2022 The reporting of results. Only the total number of interruptions were used to develop the conclusions. This implies that all the males act in much the same way and this disguises the fact that the male subjects di\ufb00ered dramatically in their behaviour. In fact, one of the eleven males did contribute nearly one-quarter of the interruptions. \u2022 Results from other studies. They report a number of con\ufb02icting studies. For example, Beattie himself found no di\ufb00erences in the volume of interruptions in a study of mixed-sex university tutorial groups. So Ellis and Beattie draw the conclusion that: the question of male and female dominance in conversation through the medi- um of interruption is far from conclusively answered. The data are still somewhat contradictory, and the interpretation of the data still not certain. There is another problem: can we be sure that every interruption actually means the same thing? These studies normally de\ufb01ne interruption as an expression of power. As the more powerful members are likely to dominate the conversation, they will tend to talk more and they will also interrupt others in order to gain the \ufb02oor. But this analysis may be mislead- ing. If you look more closely at how and why people interrupt, a di\ufb00erent picture may emerge. Some studies have suggested that women interrupt in order to show support and agreement with the original speaker. Men will interrupt both to agree and to disagree. There are also cultural di\ufb00erences to take into account\u2014consider conversations in Japan where interruption is very rare and where allocating the turn to the next speaker is a very important cooperative process.","Do Men and Women Communicate Differently? | 109 H CP D C BE ? Early theorists (who were male) had a very clear view: women\u2019s speech style was \u2018di\ufb00erent and inferior\u2019. This is usually described as de\ufb01cit theory. We can thankfully dismiss the claims of previous generations that this is a direct result of \u2018women\u2019s intellectual inferiority\u2019. But there is a second possible explanation that is more worthy of consideration: the notion that women are socialised to behave in a less powerful way and so adopt the language style which suits this status. And de\ufb01cit theory does suggest an obvious \u2018remedy\u2019 for powerless speech\u2014women need to change.12 But given the major changes to society, the dominant current explanation o\ufb00ers a very di\ufb00erent picture. Two Cultures Maltz and Borker provide an interesting account which suggests how gender di\ufb00erences in communication can develop.13 They start with the observation that boys and girls spend most of their play in single-sex groups. Following the patterns established in the culture at large, these groups have di\ufb00erent forms of social organisation. Girls will cooperate and share power. This develops their skills in responding to relationships and situations. The typical boys\u2019 group on the other hand is a hierarchy where issues of status and identity are much more prominent. As a result, boys sharpen their competitive tendencies and are more concerned with status. Once established, these di\ufb00erences carry forward into adulthood where men become more inclined to argue and compete for status and where women concentrate on cooperation and building on other people\u2019s contributions. One interesting development is that this academic analysis has now become an item on the best-seller lists. The so-called two-cultures theory suggests that men and women have two di\ufb00erent styles of communication which re\ufb02ect their di\ufb00erent goals and strategies, and which are equally valid. According to this approach, the solution or remedy to gender mis- understanding is mutual understanding and acceptance. Men and women must learn each other\u2019s ways and respond appropriately (although there is still the question of who has the major responsibility for this job of reinterpreting). Two examples of this approach are worth exploring as they have both achieved international bestseller status: the work of Deborah Tannen and John Gray. The Work of Deborah Tannen She suggests that men and women have di\ufb00erent rules for interaction.14 For example, what does \u2018uh-uh\u2019 mean? She suggests two possible interpretations: \u2018continue, I\u2019m listening\u2019, or \u2018I agree, I follow you\u2019. The \ufb01rst is the typical female reaction which emphasises social sup- port and encouragement; the second is the male message for agreement. Of course, these di\ufb00erences can very easily lead to miscommunication. If you (male) suggest a trip to the theatre as the way to spend the evening, and receive an \u2018uh-uh\u2019 response from the female","110 | Interpersonal Communication Competence in your life, then you assume that this means agreement. What happens when you rush in with the tickets and \ufb01nd her curled up in front of the TV for the night: \u2018But I didn\u2019t agree\u2019? The Work of John Gray According to John Gray, \u2018men and women are supposed to be di\ufb00erent\u2019.15 The most crucial aspect of this di\ufb00erence for the way we communicate is in our \u2018sense of self\u2019. For men this sense of self is de\ufb01ned: \u2018through his ability to achieve results\u2019. For women this sense of self is de\ufb01ned: \u2018through her feelings and the quality of her relationships\u2019. Gray argues that men and women behave di\ufb00erently because of this fundamental di\ufb00erence in personal identity. For example, when confronted by a stressful situation, an upset man \u2018stops talking\u2019 and \u2018goes into his cave\u2019. In other words, a man will retreat into solitude and try to work things out for himself. In a similar situation, a woman will seek out the company of friends and openly discuss her concerns and feelings. Gray also suggests that men and women use language di\ufb00erently to express requests: compare the male \u2018would you empty the bin?\u2019 with the female \u2018could you empty the bin?\u2019 The di\ufb03culty here is that the male interprets the female request as a \u2018put-down\u2019 which implicitly challenges his competence or his commitment (\u2018of course, I could empty it\u2019). A \ufb01nal example from Gray is his claim that women use poetic licence to express their feelings, as in \u2018nothing is working\u2019 or \u2018we never go out\u2019. The di\ufb03culty here is that men inter- pret these remarks literally and tend to respond with information rather than the required social support (\u2018we went out to the theatre two weeks ago\u2019). This factual response is seen by the woman as tactless and uncaring and a spiral of misunderstanding starts to grow. C So do we now have a clear answer to both the what and why of gender di\ufb00erences in communication? Are these theories adequate? Admittedly, I have only given a very sketchy overview of both Gray and Tannen, so perhaps I have not given their work a fair hearing. Tannen\u2019s work is based on many linguistic studies and she has written many books for the academic community.16 And she does provide a very reasoned response to her critics.17 On the other hand, Gray does not quote research studies. His justi\ufb01cation is the \u2018thousands of couples\u2019 who have been able to \u2018transform their relationships\u2019 by attending one of his workshops. But is this because of the opportunity to talk openly with each other rather than the power of Gray\u2019s philosophy? Can we be sure that \u2018remembering that we are sup- posed to be di\ufb00erent will help you to be more loving\u2019?18 Even after these considerations, I am left with three fundamental reservations about the two-cultures theory as expressed by these authors: 1. The theories still seem to ignore or play down di\ufb00erences within and between women (and men). All women and all men are treated in much the same way\u2014the di\ufb00er- ences are described as clear cut and universal. (This is especially true of Gray; Tannen is much more concerned to emphasise that she is dealing with generalisations based on observation and that \u2018of course there will be exceptions to the patterns observed\u2019.","Do Men and Women Communicate Differently? | 111 She also emphasises that \u2018To say that women and men tend to speak in di\ufb00erent ways in this culture and in this time does not mean that they must go on speaking that way, or that biology is destiny\u2019.)17 2. The theories do not pay su\ufb03cient attention to issues of power and values. This is perhaps the most fundamental problem. For example, as a typical male, do I now have permission from John Gray to retire to my \u2018cave\u2019 every time I feel upset? Am I free to exclude my partner from any discussion of my feelings? Surely that is OK if that is the natural behaviour? If my partner objects to this exclusion, am I right to ignore her? 3. The theories make implicit assumptions about \u2018good\u2019 communication. In the same way that I questioned some of the assumptions implicit in popular models of com- munication in earlier chapters, I would question some of the assumptions, especially in the books by Gray. And Finally\u2014the Practical Issues? There are also some very clear practical issues which emerge from reading this literature on male\/female communication: \u2022 What is your style of communication (and what impact does it have) when you talk to members of your own and other genders? \u2022 How do you respond to others of the same and other gender? \u2022 Will reading this chapter (and hopefully doing some further research for yourself) change your behaviour? N 1. From the feature \u2018A degree of justice\u2019 by Catherine O\u2019Brien, which appeared in You magazine, part of the Mail on Sunday 23 August 1998. 2. The article \u2018He-women?\u2019, by Ruth Sunderland and Andrew Moody, appeared in the Financial Mail on Sunday, 16 August 1998. It focused on the research by Andrew and Nada Kakabadse and Andrew Myers. See Kakabadse, A, Kakabadse, N. and Myers, A. (1998) \u2018Demographics and leadership philoso- phy: exploring gender di\ufb00erences\u2019, Journal of Management Development 17: nos 5 and 6. 3. See Chapter 4 of Hudson, R. A. (1996) Sociolinguistics, 2nd edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 4. See Spender, D. (1980) Man Made Language, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 5. There is an interesting discussion of many of the issues raised in this chapter in Hudson, note 3 above. 6. See pages 95\u2013105 of Hudson, note 3 above. 7. See pages 17\u201318 of Cameron, D. (1990) Verbal Hygeine, London: Routledge. 8. Lako\ufb00\u2019s work had a major impact in the 1970s and you might like to compare Lako\ufb00, R. (1975) Language and Woman\u2019s Place, New York: Harper and Row, and Lako\ufb00, R. T. (1990) Talking Power: The politics of language in our lives, New York: Basic Books. 9. For a further example of her work in this area, see Holmes, J. (1989) \u2018Sex di\ufb00erences and apologies: one aspect of communicative competence\u2019, Applied Linguistics 10 (2): 194\u2013213.","112 | Interpersonal Communication Competence 10. This in\ufb02uential study is described in Zimmerman, D. H. and West, C. (1975) \u2018Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation\u2019, in B. Thorne and N. Henley (eds) (1975) Language and Sex: Di\ufb00erence and dominance, Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 11. See pages 103\ufb00. of Ellis, A. and Beattie, G. (1986) The Psychology of Language and Communication, London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson. 12. See note 11. There is also a very interesting discussion of attitudes to female communication in Chapter 5 of Cameron, D. (1995) Verbal Hygiene, London: Routledge. 13. See their account in Maltz, D. N. and Borker, R. (1982) \u2018A cultural approach to male-female commu- nication\u2019, in J. J. Gumperz (ed.) Language and Social Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 14. Deborah Tannen suggests in the Preface to her 1994 book that it is \u2018the third in a series\u2019. In the \ufb01rst, she explains her \u2018framework of conversational style\u2019; see Tannen, D. (1986) That\u2019s Not What I Meant: How conversational style makes or breaks your relations with others, New York: William Morrow, Ballantine. In the second, she focuses on patterns in\ufb02uenced by gender. In both these books she concentrates on \u2018one-to-one conversations between intimates and friends\u2019; see Tannen, D. (1990) You Just Don\u2019t Understand: Women and men in conversation, New York: William Morrow, Ballantine. In the third, she looks at conversations at work; see Tannen, D. (1994) Talking From 9 To 5: How women\u2019s and men\u2019s conversational styles a\ufb00ect who gets heard, who gets credit, and what gets done at work, New York: William Morrow, Ballantine. 15. The most famous explanation of John Gray\u2019s ideas is his original Mars\/Venus book. He has since writ- ten several sequels exploring particular situations. See Gray, J. (1993) Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus: A practical guide for improving communication and getting what you want in your relationships, London: Thorsons. 16. For example, see Tannen, D. (ed.) (1993) Framing in Discourse, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 17. From the Afterword, pages 311\u201317, of Talking From 9 To 5, note 14 above. 18. Quotes are taken from pages 285\u20136 of Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, note 15 above.","CREDITS Peter Hartley, \u201cDe\ufb01ning What We Mean by Interpersonal Communication,\u201d Interpersonal Communication, pp. 16\u201327. Copyright \u00a9 1999 by Taylor & Francis Group LLC. Reprinted with permission. Peter Hartley, \u201cThe Skills of Interpersonal Communication,\u201d Interpersonal Communication. Copyright \u00a9 1999 by Taylor & Francis Group LLC. Reprinted with permission. Peter Hartley, \u201cCommunication Skills in Context,\u201d Interpersonal Communication. Copyright \u00a9 1999 by Taylor & Francis Group LLC. Reprinted with permission. James G. Clawson, Gerry Yemen, & Maria pazFigini, \u201cListen Up! How to be Appropriately Assertive.\u201d Copyright \u00a9 2004 by Darden Business Publishing. Reprinted with permission. Rick Chillot, \u201cThe Power of Touch,\u201d Psychology Today. Copyright \u00a9 2013 by Sussex Publishers Inc. Reprinted with permission. Chris Bettell, \u201cE\ufb00ective Listening.\u201d Copyright \u00a9 2006 by American Society for Training and Development (ASTD). Reprinted with permission. Karen Douglas, \u201cAntisocial Communication on Electronic Mail and the Internet,\u201d Mediated Interpersonal Communication. Copyright \u00a9 2008 by Taylor & Francis Group LLC. Reprinted with permission. Peter Hartley, \u201cDo Men and Women Communicate Di\ufb00erently?\u201d Interpersonal Communication, pp. 181\u2013192. Copyright \u00a9 1999 by Taylor & Francis Group LLC. Reprinted with permission. 113"]