Tamar Murachver

Gender and Conversational Style as Predictors of Conversational Behavior

Because gender and speech style co-vary, effects that have been attributed to speakers’ gender-based status might in fact be consequences of how people respond to particular styles of speech. To examine the relative impact of gender and speech style on conversants’ speech behavior, female and male confederates were trained to employ a facilitative or a nonfacilitative style of speech in interactions with young adults. Analyses of participants’ conversations with confederates showed that confederate speech style, rather than confederate gender, was a more reliable predictor of participants’ speech behavior. In conjunction with analyses of participant accommodation to confederate speech, the results revealed subtle differences in how women and men responded to the behavior of confederates.

It Takes Two to Tangle: Gender Symmetry in Intimate Partner Violence

This study examined the equivalence of male and female intimate partner violence (IPV) across three samples of the New Zealand population (student, general, and incarcerated). Additionally, we compared the attitudes of victims and perpetrators. Findings revealed that although the incarcerated sample experienced a higher frequency of violence, the nature of IPV was similar across the samples. More importantly, our findings showed gender symmetry in IPV with male and female IPV being similar in frequency, severity, and injury. There was, however, some variation in the type of physical abuse acts perpetrated as a function of gender. Furthermore, victims and perpetrators reported similar attitudes and behaviors that differentiated them from participants with no history of physical violence. These included being more hostile, holding traditional gendered beliefs, and lacking communication and anger management skills. A rethinking of how we view IPV is recommended in light of these findings.

The Relationship between Gender and Topic in Gender-Preferential Language Use.

This study investigates the roles of biological and psychological gender, as well as assigned discussion topic, in the written language use of nonprofessional writers. University students wrote passages on three specific topics—one socioemotional and descriptive, one functional, and one involving political debate. Effects of biological gender were minimal. Psychological gender played a greater role, particularly when measured explicitly rather than implicitly. Passage topic played the greatest role in language use. Rather than enacting their own gender through their writing, writers used language befitting the passage topic. More female-preferential devices featured in passages involving socioemotional descriptions and more male-preferential features were employed in passages involving political debate. The study demonstrates the relative impacts of gender and contextual constraints on communication.

Intimate Partner Violence: Linguistic Features and Accommodation Behavior of Perpetrators and Victims

The present study compared the communication behavior of individuals with and without histories of intimate partner violence (IPV). Specifically, the authors examined participants’ use of and accommodation toward facilitative and nonfacilitative language features as a function of their abuse histories. The findings revealed that perpetrators and victims of IPV used fewer facilitative and polite language features. Additionally, men with histories of IPV were more likely to use nonfacilitative language features. The examination of accommodation behavior revealed that perpetrators of psychological abuse were more likely to accommodate toward nonfacilitative language features and were less likely to accommodate toward facilitative language features. In all other instances, participants modified their speech toward the manipulated styles. In light of these findings, recommendations are made for IPV treatment initiatives.

Women and men's use of coercive control in intimate partner violence.

This study examined the relationship between coercive control and intimate partner violence (IPV) for men and women and for targets and perpetrators. One hundred and seventy-two participants (85 men, 87 women) recruited from three samples reported on their own and their partner’s behavior. IPV was measured using the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2). Coercive control was measured using modified items from the Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory (PMWI). Coercive control was associated with IPV, and this relationship was similar for men and women across the three samples. In fact, coercive control was predominantly reciprocal in nature, with women and men reporting both receiving and perpetrating controlling behaviors. Overall, coercive controlling behaviors were characteristic of individuals within violent relationships, regardless of their physical abuse status. The experience of violence, rather than gender, was the best predictor of coercive control.

Gender Preferential Responses to Speech

A lot has been written about how and why language use differs between women and men. Status disparity not withstanding, some apparent gender differences are a consequence of interacting with a partner who uses a particular speech style, rather than reflecting a gendered pattern of language use. To further examine the impact of conversational responses to speech style, 48 participants engaged in 2 mixed-sex conversations with 2 strangers. Participants were categorized as facilitative or nonfacilitative, and results indicated that their conversational partners responded to them in a systematic way regardless of gender. Over time, however, women and men shifted their speech towards gendered patterns. Mens talk increased, their utterances became longer, and they asked fewer questions of their partners. Women increased their use of minimal responses, reduced the amount they spoke, and asked more questions. Over time, women and mens language became more clearly differentiated.

Representation and theory of mind development.

This longitudinal study investigated the relation between childrens early use of symbols and their later understanding of representation and metarepresentation. The performance of 64 children on DeLoaches (1987) scale model task was measured at 30, 36, and 42 months, and their false belief understanding was measured at 42 and 48 months. Language and executive function measures were taken at each time point. Scale model performance was related to concurrent and subsequent false belief understanding, and scale model performance both predicted and was predicted by language across time. Language predicted false belief within and across time, and with increasing age it mediated the relation between success on the scale model task and false belief understanding. Although executive function was related to performance on scale model and theory of mind tasks, it did not mediate the relation between these. This study provides evidence suggesting that symbolic functioning, language, and theory of mind may form part of a single skill set underlying symbolic representation.

The Role of Gender in New Zealand Literature: Comparisons Across Periods and Styles of Writing

This study investigated how gender influenced language use in fiction. The writings of 59 female and 52 male authors of either award-winning or popular fiction were classified as early or contemporary depending on period of publication. More than one third of the linguistic variables coded for in the literature varied on the basis of author gender. Females used language that gave their writing a more interpersonal, socioemotional tone, whereas factual and quantitative elements were more frequently used by males. The gender effect was greater for writers of popular than award-winning fiction, and for authors writing in the early period than the contemporary period. Although results show that gender is not the only factor influencing language use, the role of gender in professional literature is robust. Variations in gender construction across period and type of writing introduce a number of avenues for future research.

Readers’ Perceptions of Author Gender and Literary Genre

Objective analyses of the language used in published literature have revealed effects of both author gender and literary genre. It is unclear, however, whether readers are sensitive to these differences. Participants’ ratings of author gender and literary genre were evaluated against actual gender and genre and statistically predicted gender and genre. Statistical predictions of gender and genre were based solely upon the authors’ use of a selection of gender-preferential language features. Overall, participants were far more adept at judging author gender than genre. They were also more accurate in judging male than female authorship. Judgments of author gender were more closely aligned with actual than statistically predicted gender. This suggests that authors display their gender in ways that extend beyond the specific language features they employ. In showing this, the study helps explain why gender is often difficult for authors to hide and for readers to ignore.

Gender and Communication in Context

Gender is a pervasive aspect of social life. The gender category one belongs to may shape the clothes worn, the activities selected, the books and news articles read, or the roles played. It might also shape the language spoken, signed or written. These choices, habits and preferences are influenced, in part, by gender stereotypes and expectations. One consequence of the pervasiveness of gender performances is that in many contexts it seems to reflect fixed and stable gender differences in behaviour. In this chapter, we explore the topic of gender differences in language use. We consider how gendered behaviours, in particular those found in language and communication, are shaped by social expectations, stereotypes, and the need for social identity. We also briefly explore whether gendered communication styles might be shaped by biological bases. Our destination, so to speak, is the claim that gender differences in language use are contextual. Understanding how gender is done through language in different contexts tells us more about the social use of language than simply arguing whether gender differences do or do not exist.