Gender-Linked Differences in the Style and Content of E-Mails to Friends

Previous research has found gender differences in the style of language used in both written communication and face-to-face interaction. Such differences have also been found in electronic interactions with strangers. This study examined the style and content of emails describing a recent holiday written by men and women for male and female friends. In line with traditional gender stereotypes, some gender differences were found in the topics covered, in the form of greater coverage of the social and domestic topics of shopping, night life, and cost by women; and the impersonal, external topics of the location, journey, and local people by men. The e-mails from female participants contained a higher incidence of features associated with the maintenance of rapport and intimacy than those from male participants, and this was more pronounced in the e-mails from female participants to male friends.

[1]  H. Giles,et al.  ‘The canary in the coalmine’: The nonaccommodation cycle in the gendered workplace , 1999 .

[2]  S. Murray.  You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation , 1992 .

[3]  M. Baldwin,et al.  Interpersonal Expectations as a Function of Self-Esteem and Sex , 1999 .

[4]  Diane F. Witmer,et al.  On-Line Smiles: Does Gender Make a Difference in the Use of Graphic Accents? , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[5]  D. Kiesler.  The 1982 Interpersonal Circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. , 1983 .

[6]  H. Giles,et al.  Accommodating the elderly: Invoking and extending a theory , 1988, Language in Society.

[7]  Sheridan D. Blau,et al.  The gender-linked language effect in primary and secondary students' impromptu essays , 1990 .

[8]  R. Thomson,et al.  Predicting gender from electronic discourse. , 2001, The British journal of social psychology.

[9]  Donald L. Rubin,et al.  Gender-Typical Style in Written Language. , 1992 .

[10]  A. Mulac,et al.  Gender-Preferential Language Use in Spouse and Stranger Interaction , 1995 .

[11]  E. L I Z A B E T,et al.  Making gender relevant: conversation analysis and gender categories in interaction , 2022 .

[12]  H. Giles,et al.  Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequence. , 1991 .

[13]  J. Holmes.  Women, Men and Politeness , 1995 .

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

[15]  Dorothy A. Winsor,et al.  Talking Power: The Politics of Language , 1991 .

[16]  A. Mulac,et al.  Male/female language differences and effects in same‐sex and mixed‐sex dyads: The gender‐linked language effect , 1988 .

[17]  T. Murachver,et al.  Gender and Conversational Style as Predictors of Conversational Behavior , 1999 .

[18]  D. Rubin,et al.  Enacting Gender Identity in Written Discourse , 2001 .

[19]  James J. Bradac,et al.  Empirical Support for the Gender-as-Culture Hypothesis: An Intercultural Analysis of Male/Female Language Differences. , 2001 .

[20]  Naomi S. Baron.  Letters by Phone or Speech by Other Means: The Linguistics of Email. , 1998 .

[21]  R. Krauss,et al.  Dominance and accommodation in the conversational behaviours of same- and mixed-gender dyads. , 1988 .

[22]  M. Hogg.  Masculine and Feminine Speech in Dyads and Groups: A Study of Speech Style and Gender Salience , 1985 .

[23]  H. Foot,et al.  Humour and laughter: Theory, research and applications. , 1976 .

[24]  A. Mulac.  Men's and Women's Talk in Same-Gender and Mixed-Gender Dyads: Power or Polemic?' , 1989 .

[25]  N. Sussman,et al.  Sex and power: gender differences in computer-mediated interactions , 2000 .

[26]  Susan C. Herring,et al.  Gender and Democracy in Computer-Mediated Communication , 1995, Computerization and Controversy, 2nd Ed..

[27]  R. Thomson,et al.  Where Is the Gender in Gendered Language? , 2001, Psychological science.