Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-18T13:41:56.549Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Gendered social interactions in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Agneta Fischer
Edited by
Arvid Kappas  and
Nicole C. Krämer
Agneta Fischer
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Arvid Kappas
Affiliation:
Jacobs University Bremen
Nicole C. Krämer
Affiliation:
Universität Duisburg–Essen
Get access

Summary

Overview: This chapter addresses the differences between computer-mediated communication (CMC) and non-computer-mediated, face-to-face communication (FTFC) with respect to gendered interactions by focusing on the consequences of the absence of visual cues. The conclusion based on the present evidence suggests that gender differences do not increase or decrease in CMC compared to FTFC, but in both modes of communication they mainly occur in settings where stereotypes are evoked. This supports the gender-in-context approach, implying that most differences between men and women in social behavior are evoked in a stereotypic context. The absence of visual cues in CMC has little impact on many gender differences in social interaction, but may affect the way in which men and women communicate emotions.

Introduction

Traditionally, computers and everything related to computers were perceived to belong to the masculine domain (Kirk, 1992). However, with the expansion of the internet, and the widespread use of computers in various forms of computer-mediated communication (CMC) (email, chatting, videoconferencing, or social networking sites, such as Hyves, Facebook, and Twitter), we have witnessed an increase of female participation in the virtual world, resulting in more or less equal participating of both sexes. Indeed, there is even evidence that in some contexts women judge CMC more favorably than men do (e.g., Allen, 1995; Hiltz and Johnson, 1990). For example, women consider emailing more effective and easier to use than men, and women seem to be more satisfied with online discussions than men are.

Type
Chapter
Information
Face-to-Face Communication over the Internet
Emotions in a Web of Culture, Language, and Technology
 , pp. 53 - 78
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adrianson, L. (2001). Gender and computer-mediated communication: group processes in problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, B. J. (1995). Gender and computer-mediated communication. Sex Roles, 32, 557–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, L. R. and Blanchard, P. N. (1982). Sex differences in task and social-emotional behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 3, 109–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aries, E. (1996). Men and Women in Interaction. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Bargh, J. and McKenna, K. Y. A. (2004). The internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 573–590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K., and Fitzsimons, G. M. (2002). Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the “true self” on the internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baym, N. (2006). Interpersonal life online. In Lievrouw, L. A. and Livingstone, S. (eds), The Handbook of New Media (pp. 35–55). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Bhappu, A. D., Griffith, T. L., and Northcraft, G. B. (1997). Media effects and communication bias in diverse groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 199–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, L. R. and Hall, J. A. (1993). Gender and emotion. In Lewis, M. and Haviland, J. M. (eds), Handbook of Emotions (pp. 447–461). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Brody, L. and Hall, J. (2000). Gender, emotion, and expression. In Lewis, M. and Haviland, J. (eds), Handbook of Emotions (pp. 338–349). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Bruckman, A. S. (1993). Gender swapping on the internet. Proceedings of INET'93, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
Bull, P. E. (2002). Communication Under the Microscope: The Theory and Practice of Microanalysis. London: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carli, L. L. (1989). Gender differences in interaction style and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 565–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coats, E. J. and Feldman, R. S. (1996). Gender differences in nonverbal correlates of social status. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1014–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culnan, M. J. and Markus, M. L. (1987). Information technologies. In Fabin, F. M., Putnam, J. L., Roberts, K. H., and Porter, L. W. (eds), Handbook of Organizational Computing: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp. 420–443). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Deaux, K. and Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: an interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derks, D., Bos, A. E. R., and Grumbkow, J. (2004). Emoticons en sociale interactie via Internet [Emoticons and social interaction on the internet]. In Wigboldus, D., Dechesne, M., Gordijn, E., and Kluwer, E. (eds), Jaarboek Sociale Psychologie 2003 (pp. 59–67). Groningen: ASPO Pers.Google Scholar
Derks, D., Bos, A. E. R., and Grumbkow, J. (2007). Emoticons and social interaction on the internet. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 842–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derks, D., Fischer, A. H., and Bos, A. E. R. (2008). The role of emotion in computer-mediated communication: a review. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 766–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donath, J. (1999). Identity and deception in the virtual community. In Smith, M. and Kollock, P. (eds), Communities in Cyberspace (pp. 29–59). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., and Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. Human–Computer Interaction, 6, 119–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social Role Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H. and Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, A. H. and Karau, S. J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: a meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 685–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, A. H. and Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behaviour: a meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 309–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evers, C. A. M., Fischer, A. H., Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M., and Manstead, A. S. R. (2005). Anger and social appraisal: a “spicy” sex difference. Emotion, 5, 258–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fischer, A. H. (1993). Sex differences in emotionality: fact or stereotype?Feminism and Psychology, 3, 303–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, A. H.(Ed.) (2000). Gender and Emotion: Social Psychological Perspectives. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, A. H., Rodriguez, P. M., Vianen, E. A. M., and Manstead, A. S. R. (2004). Gender and culture differences in emotion. Emotion, 4, 87–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fishman, P. (1983). Interaction: the work women do. In Thorne, B., Kramarae, C., and Henley, N. (eds), Language, Gender and Society (pp. 89–101). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hall, J. A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 845–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal Sex Differences: Communication Accuracy and Expressive Style. Baltimore, MD:Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, J. A. and Carter, J. D. (1999). Gender-stereotype accuracy as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 350–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. A., Carter, J. D., and Horgan, T. G. (2000). Gender differences in nonverbal communication of emotion. In Fischer, A. H. (ed.), Gender and Emotion: Social Psychological Perspectives (pp. 97–118). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, D. (1990). A cyborg manifesto: science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. In Herrmann, A. C. and Stewart, A. J. (eds), Theorizing Feminism: Parallel Trends in the Humanities and Social Sciences (pp. 424–457). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Hebert, B. G. and Vorauer, J. D. (2003). Seeing through the screen: is evaluative feedback communicated more effectively in face-to-face or computer-mediated exchanges?Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henley, N. (1977). Power, Sex, and Nonverbal Communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Herring, S. C. (1996). Two variants of an electronic message schema. In Herring, S. C. (ed.), Computer-Mediated Communication. Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives (pp. 81–108). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiltz, R. S. and Johnson, K. (1990). User satisfaction with computer-mediated communication systems. Management Science, 36, 739–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochschild, A. (1983). The Managed Heart. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1985). Sex differences and mis-communication: some data from New Zealand. In Pride, J. B. (ed.), Cross-Cultural Encounters: Communication and Miscommunication (pp. 24–43). Melbourne: River Seine Publications.Google Scholar
Huffaker, D. A. and Calvert, S. L. (2005). Gender, identity, and language use in teenage blogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/huffaker.html.Google Scholar
Izraeli, D. N. (1983). Sex effects or structural effects? An empirical test of Kanter's theory of proportions. Social Forces, 62, 153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, D. and Clarke, S. (1993). Women, men and interruptions: a critical review. In Tannen, D. (ed.), Gender and Conversational Interaction (pp. 231–280). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. A. and Schulman, G. I. (1989). Gender-role composition and role entrapment in decision-making groups. Gender and Society, 4, 355–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., and McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirk, D. (1992). Gender issues in information technology as found in schools: authentic/synthetic/fantastic?Educational Technology, 32, 28–31.Google Scholar
Kring, A. (2000). Gender and anger. In Fischer, A. H. (ed.), Gender and Emotion: Social Psychological Perspectives (pp. 211–231). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaFrance, M. and Hecht, M. (2000). Gender and smiling: a meta-analysis. In Fischer, A. H. (ed.), Gender and Emotion: Social Psychological Perspectives (pp. 97–118). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
LaFrance, M., Hecht, M. A., and Paluck, E. L. (2003). The contingent smile: a meta-analysis of sex differences in smiling. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 305–334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Women's Place. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Lea, M. and Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group-decision making. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 34, 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matheson, K. (1991). Social cues in computer-mediated communication negotiations: gender makes a difference. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowak, K. L. (2003). Sex categorization in computer-mediated communication (CMC): exploring the utopian promise. Media Psychology, 5, 83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postmes, T. and Spears, R. (2002). Behavior online: does anonymous computer communication reduce gender inequality?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1073–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postmes, T., Spears, R., and Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25, 689–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postmes, T., Spears, R., and Lea, M. (2002). Intergroup differentiation in computer-mediated communication: effects of depersonalization. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, R. and DePaulo, B. M. (1979). Sex differences in eavesdropping on nonverbal cues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 273–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasaki, M. U. and Ohbuchi, K. (1999). Conflict processes on computer-mediated communication. Tohoku Psychologica Folia, 58, 50–55.Google Scholar
Savicki, V. and Kelley, M. (2000). Computer mediated communication: gender and group composition. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 3, 817–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savicki, V., Kelley, M., and Lingenfelter, D. (1996). Gender, group composition, and task type in small task groups using computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 12, 549–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savicki, V., Kelley, M., and Oesterreich, E. (1998). Effects of instructions on computer-mediated communication in single- or mixed-gender small task groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 14, 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schouten, A. P., Valkenburg, P. M., and Peter, J. (2007). Precursors and underlying processes of adolescents' online self-disclosure: developing and testing an “internet-attribute-perception” model. Media Psychology, 10, 292–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegl, J., Dubrovsky, S., Kiesler, S., and McQuire, T. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snodgrass, S. E. (1985). Women's intuition: the effect of subordinate role on interpersonal sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 146–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snodgrass, S. E. (1992). Further effects of role versus gender on interpersonal sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 154–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sproull, L. and Kiesler, S. B. (1991). Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stoppard, J. M. and Gunn Gruchy, C. D. (1993). Gender, context and expression of positive emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 143–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Don't Understand. New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar
Tidwell, L. C. and Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28, 317–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmers, M., Fischer, A. H., and Manstead, A. S. R. (1998). Gender differences in motives for regulating emotions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 974–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valkenburg, P. M. and Peter, J. (2007). Preadolescents' and adolescents' online communication and their closeness to friends. Developmental Psychology, 43, 267–277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vingerhoets, A. and Scheirs, J. (2000). Sex differences in crying: empirical findings and possible explanations. In Fischer, A. H. (ed.), Gender and Emotion: Social Psychological Perspectives (pp. 143–166). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, H. L., MacDonald, C. J., and Manstead, A. S. R. (1986). Communication of individual emotions by spontaneous facial expressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 737–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walther, J. B. and D'Addario, K. P. (2001). The impacts of emoticons on message interpretation in computer-mediated communication. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 323–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheelan, S. A. and Verdi, A. F. (1992). Differences in male and female patterns of communication in groups: a methodological artifact?Sex Roles, 29, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. J. and Mendelsohn, G. A. (2008). Gender clues and cues: online interactions as windows into lay theories about men and women. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30, 278–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witmer, D. F. and Katzman, S. L. (1997). On-line smiles: does gender make a difference in the use of graphic accents?Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol2/issue4/witmer1.html.Google Scholar
Wolf, A. (2000). Emotional expression online: gender differences in emoticon use. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 3, 827–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, D. H. and West, C. (1975). Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In Thorne, B. and Henley, N. (eds), Language and Sex: Differences and Dominance (pp. 105–129). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×