Students' linguistic behaviour in online discussion groups: Does gender matter?

This research examined students' language use and interaction styles in text-based, computer-mediated discussion groups. The contributions of 197 introductory psychology students (149 females, 48 males) participating in asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) were collated. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used, under the methodological framework of qualitative content analysis [Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research [online] 1. http://qualitative-research.net/fqs-e/2-00halt-e.htm Accessed 10.06.2001]. A coding system, which incorporated the creation of 'supercodes', was developed using Atlas.ti 4.2 and used to code 699 student postings in total. The frequencies of coded categories were analysed using @g^2 statistics in SPSS 10. It was found that males and females were similar regarding use of individual linguistic variables, with the exception of intensifiers as more females used them than males. However, significant gender differences were found in use of many of the stylistic variables and the supercode analysis showed overall gender-related patterns in interaction styles. Males were more likely to use authoritative language and to respond negatively in interactions, than females. On the other hand, females were more likely to explicitly agree and support others and make more personal and emotional contributions, than males. The results suggest that gendered power differentials may carry over into online contexts, which has implications for the use of CMC in education.

[1]  M. Snyder.  When belief creates reality , 1984 .

[2]  J. Biggs.  Student Approaches to Learning and Studying , 1987 .

[3]  J. Walther.  Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction , 1992 .

[4]  Rose A. Lidonde,et al.  Gender and participation , 2001 .

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

[6]  David A. Huffaker,et al.  Gender, Identity, and Language Use in Teenage Blogs , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[7]  Patricia Wallace.  The Psychology of the Internet , 1999 .

[8]  C. Gilligan.  In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development , 2009 .

[9]  Vivienne Light,et al.  'Let's You and Me Have a Little Discussion': Computer mediated communication in support of campus-based university courses , 2000 .

[10]  M. Pohl,et al.  Gender in email-based co-operative problem-solving , 2005 .

[11]  David Hardisty,et al.  On the Internet , 2000, Biological Psychiatry.

[12]  Linda M. Harasim,et al.  Online Education: Perspectives on a New Environment , 1990 .

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

[14]  Susan C. Herring.  Interactional Coherence in CMC , 1999, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[15]  Vic Lally,et al.  Gender differences in an on-line learning environment , 1999, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[16]  A. Durndell,et al.  Gender, Language And Computer-mediatedCommunication , 2004 .

[17]  V. Savicki,et al.  Gender Language Style and Group Composition in Internet Discussion Groups , 2006 .

[18]  Francine Wattman Frank,et al.  Language, Gender and Society , 1985 .

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

[20]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication , 1986 .

[21]  Rigmor George.  Open and distance education as social practice , 1995 .

[22]  Sheila French,et al.  Education On-Line: What's In It for Women? , 2000, Woman, Work and Computerization.

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

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

[25]  Cate Poynton,et al.  Language and gender -- making the difference , 1986 .

[26]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  Finding a happy medium: explaining the negative effects of electronic communication on social life at work , 1994, TOIS.

[27]  Sara Kiesler,et al.  Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication , 1984 .

[28]  Eino Sierpe,et al.  Gender and Technological Practice in Electronic Discussion Lists: An Examination of JESSE, the Library/Information Science Education Forum , 2000 .

[29]  M. Zanna,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communications: The Focus Is on Me , 1990 .

[30]  Patrick Love,et al.  Women's Ways of Knowing. , 1999 .

[31]  Pia Pichler.  The handbook of language and gender , 2005, Language in Society.

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

[33]  Charles Soukup,et al.  The Gendered Interactional Patterns of Computer-Mediated Chatrooms: A Critical Ethnographic Study , 1999, Inf. Soc..

[34]  David Marsh,et al.  Gender and Participation , 2007 .

[35]  P. Mayring.  Qualitative Content Analysis , 2000 .

[36]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  Finding a happy medium: explaining the negative effects of electronic communication on social life at work , 1994, TOIS.

[37]  A. Joinson.  Self‐disclosure in computer‐mediated communication: The role of self‐awareness and visual anonymity , 2001 .

[38]  Concetta M. Stewart,et al.  Gender and Participation in Synchronous CMC: An IRC Case Study , 1999 .

[39]  K. Morgan,et al.  Human perspectives in the Internet society : culture, psychology, and gender , 2004 .

[40]  T. Postmes,et al.  The Formation of Group Norms in Computer-Mediated Communication , 2000 .

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

[42]  Simeon J. Yates.  Gender, identity and CMC , 1997, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[43]  J. Coates.  Women, men, and language , 1986 .

[44]  Sheila Ortiz Taylor.  Women in a Double-Bind: Hazards of the Argumentative Edge. , 1978 .

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

[46]  Cynthia L. Selfe,et al.  Testing Claims for On-Line Conferences , 1991 .

[47]  Richard Smith,et al.  Proceedings of the IFIP TC9/WG9.1 Seventh International Conference on Woman, Work and Computerization: Charting a Course to the Future , 2000 .

[48]  T. Postmes,et al.  A Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Phenomena , 1995 .

[49]  C. Gilligan.  In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women''s , 1982 .

[50]  H. Ono,et al.  Gender and the Internet , 2003 .

[51]  Li-Ning Huang,et al.  Gender Identification, Interdependence, and Pseudonyms in CMC: Language Patterns in an Electronic Conference , 1999, Inf. Soc..

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

[53]  Simeon Yates,et al.  Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis , 2001 .

[54]  Susan C. Herring,et al.  Gender and Power in Online Communication , 2001 .