Effects of Gendered Language on Gender Stereotyping in Computer‐Mediated Communication: The Moderating Role of Depersonalization and Gender‐Role Orientation

This experiment examined what situational and dispositional features moderate the effects of linguistic gender cues on gender stereotyping in anonymous, text-based computer-mediated communication. Participants played a trivia game with an ostensible partner via computer, whose comments represented either prototypically masculine or feminine language styles. Consistent with the social identity model of deindividuation effects, those who did not exchange brief personal profiles with their partner (i.e., depersonalization) were more likely to infer their partner’s gender from the language cues than those who did. Depersonalization, however, facilitated stereotype-consistent conformity behaviors only among gender-typed individuals; that is, participants conformed more to their masculine- than feminine-comment partners, and men were less conforming than were women, only when they were both gender-typed and depersonalized.

[1]  T. Postmes,et al.  Intergroup differentiation in computer-mediated communication: Effects of depersonalization , 2002 .

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

[3]  John C. Turner,et al.  The I, the Me, and the Us: The psychological group and self-concept maintenance and change , 2001 .

[4]  T. Postmes,et al.  Breaching or Building Social Boundaries? Side-Effects of Computer-Mediated Communication. , 2002 .

[5]  Sabine C. Koch,et al.  Constructing Gender in Chat Groups , 2005 .

[6]  Barbara Westbrook Eakins,et al.  Sex differences in human communication , 1978 .

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

[8]  Eun-Ju Lee,et al.  When and How Does Depersonalization Increase Conformity to Group Norms in Computer-Mediated Communication? , 2006, Commun. Res..

[9]  John Short,et al.  The social psychology of telecommunications , 1976 .

[10]  S. Bem.  Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. , 1981 .

[11]  Wendy Wood,et al.  Gender and influenceability: Stereotype versus behavior , 1985 .

[12]  Gender differences in task groups: A status and legitimacy account. , 1988 .

[13]  L. Tidwell,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication Effects on Disclosure, Impressions, and Interpersonal Evaluations: Getting to Know One Another a Bit at a Time , 2002 .

[14]  Eun-Ju Lee,et al.  Effects of the Influence Agent’s Sex and Self-Confidence on Informational Social Influence in Computer-Mediated Communication: , 2005, Commun. Res..

[15]  A. Mulac,et al.  Men's behavior toward women after viewing sexually-explicit films: degradation makes a difference , 2002 .

[16]  Victor Savicki,et al.  Effects of training on computer-mediated communication in single or mixed gender small task groups , 2002, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[17]  Tom Postmes,et al.  When are net effects gross products? The power of influence and the influence of power in computer-mediated communication. , 2002 .

[18]  T. Postmes,et al.  Behavior Online: Does Anonymous Computer Communication Reduce Gender Inequality? , 2002 .

[19]  Nicholas A. Palomares.  Gender Schematicity, Gender Identity Salience, and Gender‐Linked Language Use , 2004 .

[20]  K. Matheson.  Social cues in computer-mediated negotiations: Gender makes a difference , 1991 .

[21]  J. L. Orlofsky,et al.  Differential effectiveness of two classification procedures on the Bem Sex Role Inventory. , 1977, Journal of personality assessment.

[22]  S. Bem,et al.  Bem sex-role inventory : professional manual , 1981 .

[23]  A. Mulac,et al.  Comparison of the gender-linked language effect and sex role stereotypes. , 1985 .

[24]  R. Spears,et al.  Social influence and the influence of the 'social' in computer-mediated communication. , 1992 .

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

[26]  W. Wood,et al.  TITLE Sex Differences in Interaction Style as a Product of Perceived Sex Differences in Competence , 2007 .

[27]  L. Thompson,et al.  Battle of the sexes: gender stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiations. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[28]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[29]  Justin Kruger,et al.  When what you type isn’t what they read: The perseverance of stereotypes and expectancies over e-mail , 2005 .

[30]  M. Mcluhan.  Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man , 1964 .

[31]  B. Meeker,et al.  Sex roles and interpersonal behavior in task-oriented groups. , 1977, American sociological review.

[32]  Richard T. Herschel,et al.  Exploring numerical proportions in a unique context: The group support systems meeting environment , 1994 .

[33]  Victor Savicki,et al.  Judgments of gender in computer-mediated communication , 1999 .

[34]  Alice H. Eagly,et al.  Gender and Social Influence: A Social Psychological Analysis. , 1983 .

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

[36]  Sara B. Kiesler,et al.  The Equalization Phenomenon: Status Effects in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Decision-Making Groups , 1991, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[37]  Yu Qiu-mei,et al.  Causes and Implications of Disinhibited Behaviors on the Internet , 2007 .

[38]  Kristine L. Nowak.  Sex Categorization in Computer Mediated Communication (CMC): Exploring the Utopian Promise , 2003 .

[39]  M. Hogg,et al.  Intergroup behaviour, self-stereotyping and the salience of social categories , 1987 .

[40]  S. Bem,et al.  Sex typing and the avoidance of cross-sex behavior. , 1976, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[41]  A. Eagly,et al.  Sex of researchers and sex-typed communications as determinants of sex differences in influenceability: A meta-analysis of social influence studies , 1981 .

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

[43]  S. Bem,et al.  If you are gender schematic, all members of the opposite sex look alike. , 1985 .

[44]  D. Gilbert,et al.  On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet persons perceived. , 1988 .

[45]  Melanie C. Page,et al.  Levine's Guide to Spss for Analysis of Variance , 2003 .

[46]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group decision making and communication technology , 1992 .

[47]  R. Spears,et al.  Panacea or Panopticon? , 1994 .

[48]  A. Mulac,et al.  Differences in perceptions created by syntactic‐semantic productions of male and female speakers , 1980 .

[49]  Maureen S. Battistella,et al.  Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization , 1991 .

[50]  Linda L. Carli.  Gender, Interpersonal Power, and Social Influence , 1999 .

[51]  G. Miller,et al.  Handbook of Interpersonal Communication , 1985 .

[52]  T. Postmes,et al.  Social Cues and Impression Formation in CMC , 2003 .

[53]  J. Gackenbach.  Psychology and the Internet : intrapersonal, interpersonal, and transpersonal implications , 1998 .

[54]  S. Herring,et al.  Assessing Gender Authenticity in Computer-Mediated Language Use , 2004 .

[55]  Malcolm R. Parks,et al.  Cues Filtered Out, Cues Filtered In: Computer-Mediated Communication and Relationships , 2002 .

[56]  A. Mulac.  The Gender-Linked Language Effect: Do Language Differences Really Make a Difference? , 2006 .

[57]  Kathryn Dindia,et al.  Sex differences and similarities in communication : critical essays and empirical investigations of sex and gender in interaction , 1999 .