Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Contributors
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part 1 General aspects of visual cues in CMC
- 1 Visual cues in computer-mediated communication: sometimes less is more
- 2 To be seen or not to be seen: the presentation of facial information in everyday telecommunications
- 3 Gendered social interactions in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication
- Part 2 Video- and avatar-based communication
- Part 3 Emotions and visual cues in HCI
- Index
- Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction
- References
3 - Gendered social interactions in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Contributors
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part 1 General aspects of visual cues in CMC
- 1 Visual cues in computer-mediated communication: sometimes less is more
- 2 To be seen or not to be seen: the presentation of facial information in everyday telecommunications
- 3 Gendered social interactions in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication
- Part 2 Video- and avatar-based communication
- Part 3 Emotions and visual cues in HCI
- Index
- Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction
- References
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 InternetEmotions in a Web of Culture, Language, and Technology, pp. 53 - 78Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2011
References
(2001). Gender and computer-mediated communication: group processes in problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1982). Sex differences in task and social-emotional behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 3, 109–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1950). Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
and (2004). The internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 573–590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (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
(2006). Interpersonal life online. In and (eds), The Handbook of New Media (pp. 35–55). London: Sage.Google Scholar
, , and (1997). Media effects and communication bias in diverse groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 199–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1993). Gender and emotion. In and (eds), Handbook of Emotions (pp. 447–461). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
and (2000). Gender, emotion, and expression. In and (eds), Handbook of Emotions (pp. 338–349). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
(2002). Communication Under the Microscope: The Theory and Practice of Microanalysis. London: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1989). Gender differences in interaction style and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 565–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1996). Gender differences in nonverbal correlates of social status. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1014–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1987). Information technologies. In , , , and (eds), Handbook of Organizational Computing: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp. 420–443). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
and (1987). Putting gender into context: an interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2004). Emoticons en sociale interactie via Internet [Emoticons and social interaction on the internet]. In , , , and (eds), Jaarboek Sociale Psychologie 2003 (pp. 59–67). Groningen: ASPO Pers.Google Scholar
, and (2007). Emoticons and social interaction on the internet. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 842–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2008). The role of emotion in computer-mediated communication: a review. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 766–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1999). Identity and deception in the virtual community. In and (eds), Communities in Cyberspace (pp. 29–59). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
, , and (1991). The equalization phenomenon: status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. Human–Computer Interaction, 6, 119–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1987). Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social Role Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
and (1990). Gender and leadership style: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: a meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 685–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1986). Gender and aggressive behaviour: a meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 309–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , and (2005). Anger and social appraisal: a “spicy” sex difference. Emotion, 5, 258–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1993). Sex differences in emotionality: fact or stereotype?Feminism and Psychology, 3, 303–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) (2000). Gender and Emotion: Social Psychological Perspectives. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (2004). Gender and culture differences in emotion. Emotion, 4, 87–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1983). Interaction: the work women do. In , , and (eds), Language, Gender and Society (pp. 89–101). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
(1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 845–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1984). Nonverbal Sex Differences: Communication Accuracy and Expressive Style. Baltimore, MD:Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
and (1999). Gender-stereotype accuracy as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 350–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2000). Gender differences in nonverbal communication of emotion. In (ed.), Gender and Emotion: Social Psychological Perspectives (pp. 97–118). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1990). A cyborg manifesto: science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. In and (eds), Theorizing Feminism: Parallel Trends in the Humanities and Social Sciences (pp. 424–457). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
and (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
(1996). Two variants of an electronic message schema. In (ed.), Computer-Mediated Communication. Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives (pp. 81–108). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1990). User satisfaction with computer-mediated communication systems. Management Science, 36, 739–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1985). Sex differences and mis-communication: some data from New Zealand. In (ed.), Cross-Cultural Encounters: Communication and Miscommunication (pp. 24–43). Melbourne: River Seine Publications.Google Scholar
and (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
(1983). Sex effects or structural effects? An empirical test of Kanter's theory of proportions. Social Forces, 62, 153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1993). Women, men and interruptions: a critical review. In (ed.), Gender and Conversational Interaction (pp. 231–280). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
and (1989). Gender-role composition and role entrapment in decision-making groups. Gender and Society, 4, 355–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1992). Gender issues in information technology as found in schools: authentic/synthetic/fantastic?Educational Technology, 32, 28–31.Google Scholar
(2000). Gender and anger. In (ed.), Gender and Emotion: Social Psychological Perspectives (pp. 211–231). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2000). Gender and smiling: a meta-analysis. In (ed.), Gender and Emotion: Social Psychological Perspectives (pp. 97–118). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
, , and (2003). The contingent smile: a meta-analysis of sex differences in smiling. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 305–334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (1991). Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group-decision making. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 34, 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1991). Social cues in computer-mediated communication negotiations: gender makes a difference. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2003). Sex categorization in computer-mediated communication (CMC): exploring the utopian promise. Media Psychology, 5, 83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2002). Behavior online: does anonymous computer communication reduce gender inequality?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1073–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25, 689–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2002). Intergroup differentiation in computer-mediated communication: effects of depersonalization. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1979). Sex differences in eavesdropping on nonverbal cues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 273–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1999). Conflict processes on computer-mediated communication. Tohoku Psychologica Folia, 58, 50–55.Google Scholar
and (2000). Computer mediated communication: gender and group composition. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 3, 817–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1996). Gender, group composition, and task type in small task groups using computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 12, 549–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (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
, , and (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
, , , and (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1985). Women's intuition: the effect of subordinate role on interpersonal sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 146–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1992). Further effects of role versus gender on interpersonal sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 154–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1991). Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
and (1993). Gender, context and expression of positive emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 143–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (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
, , and (1998). Gender differences in motives for regulating emotions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 974–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2007). Preadolescents' and adolescents' online communication and their closeness to friends. Developmental Psychology, 43, 267–277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2000). Sex differences in crying: empirical findings and possible explanations. In (ed.), Gender and Emotion: Social Psychological Perspectives (pp. 143–166). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1986). Communication of individual emotions by spontaneous facial expressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 737–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1996). Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2001). The impacts of emoticons on message interpretation in computer-mediated communication. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 323–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1992). Differences in male and female patterns of communication in groups: a methodological artifact?Sex Roles, 29, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (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
and (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
(2000). Emotional expression online: gender differences in emoticon use. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 3, 827–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1975). Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In and (eds), Language and Sex: Differences and Dominance (pp. 105–129). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
- 8
- Cited by