Gender, Language, and Social Influence: A Test of Expectation States, Role Congruity, and Self‐Categorization Theories

This study compares self-categorization, expectation states, and role congruity theories' explanations for female influence. Male and female participants (N = 267) listened to a recording of a female speaker who used either tentative or assertive language under conditions that led participants to categorize her as a woman or as college-educated. There was no evidence that women were differentially influenced by the speaker's linguistic style or by the categorization. Men, however, were more influenced by the tentative speaker when she was categorized as a woman than as a college student. Men were more influenced by an assertive than tentative speaker when the speaker was categorized as a college student. Mediational findings provided evidence for self-categorization and expectation states, but not role congruity, processes.

[1]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models , 2008, Behavior research methods.

[2]  Sahara Byrne,et al.  A Critical Test of Self‐Enhancement, Exposure, and Self‐Categorization Explanations for First‐ and Third‐Person Perceptions , 2007 .

[3]  Status generalization in context: The moderating role of groups , 2007 .

[4]  S. Ng,et al.  The Dynamics of Intragroup Differentiation in an Intergroup Social Context , 2006 .

[5]  M. Hogg,et al.  Social Identity, Self-Categorization, and the Communication of Group Norms , 2006 .

[6]  Shelley J. Correll,et al.  Expectation states theory. , 2006 .

[7]  C. Judd,et al.  When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. , 2005, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[8]  Aboriginal Self‐Determination in Australia , 2005 .

[9]  Aboriginal self-determination in Australia - The effects of minority-majority frames and target universalism on majority collective guilt and compensation attitudes , 2005 .

[10]  Michael A. Hogg,et al.  A Self‐Categorization Explanation for the Third‐Person Effect , 2005 .

[11]  S. Reicher,et al.  The Context of Social Identity: Domination, Resistance, and Change , 2004 .

[12]  M. Hogg,et al.  Leadership and Power: Identity Processes in Groups and Organizations , 2004 .

[13]  Nicholas A. Palomares,et al.  Language, Gender Salience, and Social Influence , 2003 .

[14]  Michael J. Platow,et al.  Self-categorization, status, and social influence , 2003 .

[15]  James R Roney.  Effects of Visual Exposure to the Opposite Sex: Cognitive Aspects of Mate Attraction in Human Males , 2003, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[16]  Identity, Power, and Strategic Social Categorizations: Theorizing the Language of Leadership , 2003 .

[17]  Daniel J. Svyantek,et al.  THE EFFECTS OF JOB STEREOTYPE, APPLICANT GENDER, AND COMMUNICATION STYLE ON RATINGS IN SCREENING INTERVIEWS , 2003 .

[18]  Amy J. C. Cuddy,et al.  A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. , 2002, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[19]  S. Karau,et al.  Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. , 2002, Psychological review.

[20]  C. Ridgeway,et al.  Gender, Status, and Leadership , 2001 .

[21]  Laurie A. Rudman,et al.  Prescriptive Gender Stereotypes and Backlash Toward Agentic Women , 2001 .

[22]  Linda L. Carli.  Gender and Social Influence , 2001 .

[23]  J. Berger,et al.  Status, Power, and Legitimacy: Strategies and Theories , 1999 .

[24]  Laurie A. Rudman,et al.  Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: the hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[25]  Sarah K. Murnen,et al.  Hyperfemininity and Influence , 1999 .

[26]  M. Verkuyten,et al.  Ingroup bias: the effect of self‐stereotyping, identification and group threat , 1999 .

[27]  S. Ng,et al.  Language, Power, and Intergroup Relations , 1999 .

[28]  Laurie A. Rudman,et al.  Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: the costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. , 1998, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[29]  Naomi Ellemers,et al.  Self-Stereotyping in the Face of Threats to Group Status and Distinctiveness: The Role of Group Identification , 1997 .

[30]  Joseph Berger,et al.  Gender and Interpersonal Task Behaviors: Status Expectation Accounts , 1997 .

[31]  C. Ridgeway,et al.  INTERACTION AND THE CONSERVATION OF GENDER INEQUALITY: CONSIDERING EMPLOYMENT* , 1997 .

[32]  Linda L. Carli,et al.  INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSES Nonverbal Behavior, Gender, and Influence , 2004 .

[33]  Madeline E. Heilman,et al.  Special issue: Gender in the workplace. Sex stereotypes:: Do they influence perceptions of managers? , 1995 .

[34]  Darío Páez,et al.  The ‘Black Sheep Effect’: Social Categorization, Rejection of Ingroup Deviates, and Perception of Group Variability , 1994 .

[35]  R. Z. Norman,et al.  Status inconsistency in task situations: A test of four status processing principles. , 1992 .

[36]  Michael A. Hogg,et al.  The Social Psychology of Group Cohesiveness: From Attraction to Social Identity , 1992 .

[37]  C. Ridgeway,et al.  The Social Construction of Status Value: Gender and Other Nominal Characteristics , 1991 .

[38]  Linda L. Carli,et al.  Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes Gender, Language, and Influence , 2022 .

[39]  M. Hogg,et al.  Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. , 1990, The British journal of social psychology.

[40]  Dominic Abrams,et al.  Social Identification, Self-Categorization and Social Influence , 1990 .

[41]  C. Ridgeway,et al.  What Is the Relationship Between Socioemotional Behavior and Status in Task Groups? , 1990, American Journal of Sociology.

[42]  J. Crocker,et al.  Collective self-esteem and ingroup bias. , 1990 .

[43]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Salience, motivation and artifact as contributions to the relation between participation rate and leadership , 1989 .

[44]  M. Hogg,et al.  Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. , 1989 .

[45]  C. Ridgeway,et al.  Dominance and collective hierarchy formation in male and female task groups. , 1989 .

[46]  C. Keating,et al.  Power Displays Between Women and Men in Discussions of Gender-Linked Tasks: A Multichannel Study , 1988 .

[47]  A. Eagly.  Sex differences in social behavior : a social-role interpretation , 1987 .

[48]  Joseph Berger,et al.  Expectations, legitimation, and dominance behavior in task groups. , 1986 .

[49]  Diane M. Mackie,et al.  Social identification effects in group polarization , 1986 .

[50]  M. Wiley,et al.  Speech style, gender stereotypes, and corporate success: What if women talk more like men? , 1985 .

[51]  C. Ridgeway,et al.  Status in Groups: The Importance of Motivation. , 1982 .

[52]  R. Z. Norman,et al.  Status Characteristics and Social Interaction. , 1978 .

[53]  R. R. Haccoun,et al.  Sex differences in the appropriateness of supervisory styles: A nonmanagement view. , 1978 .

[54]  R. L. Dipboye,et al.  Sex and physical attractiveness of raters and applicants as determinants of resumé evaluations. , 1977 .

[55]  V. E. Schein.  Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers. , 1975, The Journal of applied psychology.

[56]  M. Burgoon,et al.  TOWARD A MESSAGE‐CENTERED THEORY OF PERSUASION: THREE EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF LANGUAGE INTENSITY1 , 1975 .

[57]  R. Lakoff.  Language and woman's place , 1973, Language in Society.

[58]  V. E. Schein.  The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. , 1973, The Journal of applied psychology.

[59]  Joseph Berger,et al.  Status Characteristics and Social Interaction , 1972 .

[60]  E. Miller.  Handbook of Social Psychology , 1946, Mental Health.