PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1/96 chIRCJDueDmpGS—pu

 

 

UNOBTRUSIVE MEASURES IN THE
ASSESSMENT OF SEX-SPECIFIC
DIFFERENCES IN CONVERSATIONAL

INTERACTION

BY

Robert Maierhofer

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Counseling and
Educational Psychology

1983

In memory of my mom.

She would've been proud.

ii

ABSTRACT

UNOBTRUSIVE MEASURES IN THE
ASSESSMENT OF SEX-SPECIFIC
DIFFERENCES IN CONVERSATIONAL
INTERACTION

BY

Robert Maierhofer

This purpose of this study was to unobtrusively inves-
tigate the relationships between sex of speaker, sex of
listener, and self-other focus; and sex of speaker, age of
speaker on self-other reference. In addition to studying
these two-way interactions, the main effects of sex of the
speaker, age of the speaker, and sex of the listener were
evaluated in terms of self-other focus. Two collateral
studies were also presented which examined the orientation
of the speaker and the topic coded.

A review of the literature identified numerous inter-
actional differences that exist between same and mixed-sex
dyads, and various age categories, with a general consensus
on the self-other dichotomy. Equally evident in the liter-
ature was a conspicuous absence of studies using nonreac-
tive procedures and studying naturally-occurring behavior.

The inconclusiveness of the research on interactional

iii

Robert Maierhofer

patterns of same and mixed-sex dyads and the overreliance
on orthodox research methodologies provided the impetus for
this study.

Four hundred and eighty conversations were surrepti-
tiously collected by five trained raters. The conversa-
tions were sampled from throughout the state of New Hamp-
shire, utilizing 64 different locations. Aside from noting
pronoun usage, sex of the dyad, location, and age of the
interactants, the coders recorded the topic of the conver-
sation.

The research design was a 3x2x2 factorial design. The
independent variables were: sex of the speaker, sex of the
listener, and age of the speaker. The dependent variables
were self reference and other reference. Anecdotal com-
ments were solicited from the raters to be included in the
analysis of the results.

The four formal hypotheses were not statistically
significant. The prediction that male-male dyads would
have the greatest self-focus was not substantiated (p =
.06). Instead, the pattern seemed to be one of increased
selfereference for same-sex dyads.

The clearest and most consistent finding of this re-
search concerned the relationship between the age of the
speaker and self-other focus. In three separate instances,
significant relationships were determined to exist between
the speaker's age and self-other reference. More specific-

ally, the relationship showed the youngest age group to be

iv

Robert Maierhofer

the most self—focused, while the older age groups were more
other-focused. This finding was determined to be consonant
with most theories of social development.

The study concluded with a restatement of the signifi-
cant findings and suggestions for future research. Before
more definitive conclusions can be stated regarding sex-
differences in social interaction, more rigorous studies
need to be done, especially those utilizing naturally-

occurring behavior and nonreactive measures.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 

I would like to acknowledge the assistance and support
of the following people, without whom this project would
not have been realized.

This dissertation was 'written on the road' and as
such, presented special long-distance communication pro-
blems. My chairperson, Bill Hinds, very capably and coop-
eratively expedited many of these issues.

Dave Wenger, a friend throughout my graduate career,
and a reliable source of support during this work.

Bertram Stoffelmayr, a believer in this type of re-
search and one who graciously stood-in as my proposal chair
on short notice.

Richard Houang, for the statistical assistance which
he provided.

Dick Johnson, who willingly agreed to join my commit-
tee at a late, critical hour.

A special thanks is very much in order for Dr. Becky
Warner of the University of New Hampshire. From the begin-
ning of this project, she unselfishly gave of her time and
considerable expertise. Aside from her initial support for
this type of research, she patiently advised me throughout

all phases, in return, accepting only the rewards intrinsic

vi

to the teaching process. In point of fact, the disserta-
tion would not have been concluded without her. She is a
tremendous teacher.

To all the coders and raters who, for 18 weeks, were
willing to listen to strangers speak. In particular, the
deligence and imagination of Tom Blinn, Claire Goyer, Bing
Hawes, and Marlene Szymanski were greatly appreciated, as
was the contribution of Bill and Diane White.

To my colleagues at the Dream Institute who kept me
'on the good foot.‘

Finally, to Beverly Strzok, whose belief in me did not
falter and whose irrepressible sense of optimism overcame

my doubts and fears. A true Sugar Magnolia.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF FIGURES O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter

I.

II.

III.

IV.

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . .

Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Research Hypotheses . . . . . . .
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . .

REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . .

Experimental Stimuli, Friendships,

Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Game Theory and Sex Differences .
Ethnographic Anecdotal Research .
Empirical Language Studies . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY .
Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Instrumentation . . . . . . . . .
Reliability . . . . . . . . . . .

Research Procedures . . . . . . .
Research Design . . . . . . . . .
Research Hypotheses . . . . .

Procedures for the Analysis of Data . .

Summary of Procedures . . . . . .
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . .

Anecdotal Comments . . . . . . .
Descriptive Statistics . . . . .
Results of Hypothesis Testing . .
Further Analyses of Interest . .
Collateral Studies . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . .

viii

Page

xi

xii

10
ll
12

13

14
26
31
34
43

44

44
45
45
52
53

S7
58

.61

61
62
65

69
76

V. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

DiscuSSion O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 82
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Recommendations for Further Research . . . 88

APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 92

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

ix

LIST OF TABLES

 

Most Frequent Locations . . . . . . . . .
Age of Speaker by Age of Listener Frequencies
Distribution of the Dependent Variables . .

Cell Means and Standard Deviations for Hypo-
thesis Number I . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard Deviations for Hypo-

II C O O O O O C O O O O O O

Cell Means and
thesis Number

Cell Means and
thesis Number

Standard Deviations for Hypo-
III . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard Deviations for Hypo-
IV . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cell Means and
thesis Number

Expected by Obtained Frequencies, Orientation
by Female Speaker, Age of Speaker . . . . .

Expected by Obtained Frequencies, Orientation
by Sex of Speaker . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Expected by Obtained Frequencies, Orientation
by Age of Speaker . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sex of Speaker by Topic . . . . . . . . . . .
Topic Distribution by Male/Female Speakers .

Topic Frequency by Same and Mixed Sex Dyads .

Page
63

64

64

65

66

67

67

7O

71

72
73
74

75

3.1

3.3
3.4

3.6

LIST OF FIGURES

 

Coding Instrument . . . .

Reliability Administration
Reliability Administration
Reliability Administration
Reliability Administration

Design of Study . . . . .

xi

II

III

IV

Page
46

48
49
50
51

54

LIST OF APPENDICES

 

Instrument, Training, Procedures, Practice
Dialogues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Reliability Dialogues . . . . . . . . . .
Training Manual for Collateral Studies . .
Listing of Coded Statements . . . . . . .

Analysis of Variance Tables . . . . . . .

xii

Page

92
104
114
120

136

INTRODUCTION

 

Leona Tyler noted in her classic work, the Psychology

 

of Human Differences, (1974) "no topic in psychology is of

 

more perennial interest than that of sex differences"

(p. 239). Attesting to that interest, sex differences

have been scrutinized across a number of different vari-
ables, including: achievement, personality, motivation,
cognition, aggression, and social orientation (Bennett &'
Cohen, 1959; Broverman, I., Vogel, S., Broverman, D.,
Clarkson, P., & Rosenkrantz, P., 1972; Garai & Scheinfeld,
1968; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Terman & Miles, 1936). As
one might anticipate, this intense focus of research atten-
tion has yielded eminently equivocal results. Even though
the most recent definitive work in the field (Maccoby &
Jacklin, 1974) has distilled the results of 1600 studies

on sex differences down to an austere, "four fairly well
established differences," their findings have been chal-
lenged on methodological grounds (Block, 1976). Moreover,
the authors expressed their own reservations by noting the
underrepresentation of certain age groups, limitations on
.measuring certain constructs, and more problematic, the
possibility that sex differences might ultimately be situa-

tion.specific.

In spite of the ambiguity and lack of precision which
characterizes most of the research findings on sex differ-
ences, certain basic dichotomies persist. Notably, there
is a sizable amount of research evidence which suggests
that one critical aspect of sex differentiation is related
to the style of social interaction of men and women (Ben-
nett & Cohen, 1959; Broverman et al., 1972; Garai &
Scheinfeld, 1968: Gilligan. 1982; Maccoby, 1966; Maccoby
& Jacklin, 1974). Consequently, it is believed that women
typically interact in a manner which emphasizes the con-
textual aspects of the relationship, attending to feelings
of cooperation, caring, acceptance, and, more globally, the
interdependence of the individuals. Males, oppositely,
tend to demonstrate interpersonal behavior which frequently
subordinates the expressive or personal dimension in favor
of highlighting feelings of self-regard, mastery, competi-
tiveness, separateness, and objectivity. The more specific
qualities of this social differentiation have been defined
in numerous empirical studies which have noted the behavior
of men and women across a number of different variables
(task designs, conformity experiments, perception of sti-
muli, friendship formation, content of conversation, and
quality of ethical decision-making) and in interactions
composed of different groups (families, same and mixed-sex
groups, dyads, triads, groups that vary by status, and jury

groups). In spite of all the research attention given to

sex-specific aspects of social interaction, very few stu-
dies have considered this phenomena using naturally-
occurring dyads and nonreactive procedures (Aries, 1976;
Deaux, 1978; Thune, E., Manderscheid, R., Silbergeld, S.,
1980b). This study will incorporate these features in its

design.

Theory

The theorists to be presented in this paper do not
represent the totality of perspectives on gender-specific
social orientation, but the following summary does discuss
those who are most often cited in the literature. More
than cursory attention will be given to this section in
that some of the descriptors associated with the following
dimensions will later be utilized in the design of the
study.

David Gutman (1965), working within the psychoanalytic
tradition, has used two terms originally coined by Scha-
chtel (1959) to express the salient dimensions of male/
female functioning. Given the variable instinctual pres-
sures which are exerted on men and women (Freud, 1925), and
the marked differences in their social environments, he
feels that men tend to develop along allocentric lines,
while women mature along autocentric lines. Continuing,
Gutman feels that these unique orientations manifest them-
selves most clearly with respect to formulations of space

and time, variable apprehensions of the self and other,

and divergent representations of the future. Gutman wrote:

In the allocentric sphere, relations with
others share the general unpredictablity
of all allocentric events. There others
are alien, intent on private goals; the
allocentric others are a class of objects,
to be tested and investigated as such.
Objectifying others thus, we also objec-
tify ourselves, and thereby come to ex-
perience our own separateness. (p. 235)

This portrayal is a marked contrast to the autocentric

sphere which:
pools individuals into larger groupings of
nuclear family, extended family, neighbor-
hood, clan. When the self drives its 'name'
from the groupings to which it belongs, the
distinctions between self and other are
blurred over. We identify ourselves with a
name--and we thus identify and recognize
ourselves in the other who derives his name
from our common affiliation...In this situa-
tion, self and others are not experienced as
'me' distinct from 'them' but as my group
apart from those others. (p. 235)

David Bakan (1966), reasoning in a more general, phil-
osophical vein, postulated two constructs, agency and com-
munion, which he felt identified the fundamental modalities
between and within humans. Similar to Gutman's concepts,
agency and communion have distinct masculine, feminine
overtones (Brown & Marks, 1969), but unlike Gutman's, his
are not strictly derivative of gender differences. In-
stead, agency and communion represent levels of human exis-
tence, from the cellular to the societal, and which, opti-

mally, continue to exist in balance throughout the lifespan

(Carlson, 1971).

According to Bakan:

The terms agency and communion charac-
terize two fundamental modalities in the
existence of living forms, agency for the
existence of an organism as an individual
and communion for the participation of the
individual in some larger organism, of
which the individual is a part. Agency
manifests itself in self-protection, self-
assertion, and self-expansion: communion
manifests itself in the sense of being at
one with other organisms. Agency manifests
itself in isolation, alienation, and alone-
ness: communion with contact, openness,
and union.

Agency manifests itself in the urge to mas-
tery: communion in non-contractual coop-
eration. Agency represents itself in the
repression of thought, feeling and impulse;
communion in the lack and removal of re-
pression.... (1966, p. 15)

When these factors cease to exist in relative equilibrium,
as in the case of "unmitigated agency," the organism or
society will be vulnerable to self-destructive forces.

Yet other researchers, toiling in another discipline,
have nominated two contructs which are, implicitly and
explicitly, similar to the ideas of Bakan and Gutman.

These theorists (Parsons & Bales, 1955) advance the belief
that the family can be viewed as a small group or subsystem
of society and, as such, it is subject to the same forces
of differentiation that affect other groups. According to
these writers, an example of this differentiation is pre-
sent in the socialization of children, which they view as
one of the two essential functions of parents. This dicho-
tomy has been labelled instrumental versus expressive.

While Parsons and Bales note, and others have shown

elsewhere (Chodorow, 1974; Mead, 1935), the allocation of
these roles is not innate, rather "the bearing and nursing
of children establishes a strong presumptive primacy of the
relation of mother to the small child and this in turn
establishes a strong presumption that the man, who is
exempted from these biological functions, should specialize
in the alternative instrumental direction" (1955, p. 23).
Proceeding from this point, the authors illustrate how
industrial societies comply with this initial biological
difference and, in fact, exaggerate it through a sharpened
articulation of occupational versus domestic milieus and
the attendant demise of the extended family, which also
more starkly delineates the discrete responsibilities of
the parents.

As a final comment on this last perspective, and be-
fore considering how it has been operationalized in the
empirical studies, it will be interesting to note the des-
scriptors which these sociologists have attached to the
terms "expressive" and "instrumental."

Ego, therefore, will be considered in-
strumental leader of the nuclear family
if the ethnographer's report offers
statements of the form: Ego is boss-
manager of the farm; leader of the hunt,
etc....Ego is the final court of appeals,
final judge and executor of punishment,
discipline and control over the children
of the family.

Ego will be considered expressive leader
of the family if the ethnographer's re-
port offer statements to the form of the
following: Ego is the mediator, concili-

ator of the family, ego smooths over dis-
putes, resolves hostilities in the family.

Ego is affectionate, solicitious, warm,

emotional to the children of the family;

ego is the 'comforter' the consoler, is

relatively indulgent, relatively unpun-

ishing. (1955, p. 318)
Different researchers, working in different disciplines,
have produced a surprising degree of unanimity regarding
those dimensions salient to sex—specific social function-
ing. Prior to a review of how sex differences in social
functioning, particularly self versus other focus, have

been treated in the empirical research, the need for the

current study will be considered.

Need

 

Aside from the general inconclusiveness of existing
research, two other factors argue for a closer reexamina-
tion of gender-specific patterns of social interaction.
Recently, the women's movement has compelled individuals
and institutions to reconsider their roles in society and,
in some cases, to abandon stereotypic expectations and
values in favor of more idiosyncratic expression. Evidence
of this rethinking is central to Carol Gilligan's thesis

in her new book, In A Different Voice: Psychology Theory

 

and Women's Development (1982). She reviews the history
of mainstream developmental psychology and concludes by
indicting it of a value system informed only by male norms
and, therefore, disparaging of females' vision of maturity.

It is reasonable to assume that this social movement and

the radical revisionism that it may imply, will impact the
nature of social interactions (Aries, 1976; Booth, 1972;
Gibbs, M., Auerbach, D., & Fox, M., 1978).

Secondarily, the findings in this area warrant further
investigation in lieu of the conspicious absence of metho-
dologies which utilize naturally-occuring dyads and unob-
trusive measures. Research in social dynamics, as in most
areas of psychology, has been relegated to the social psy-
chologist's laboratory and to contrived manipulations of

subjects. In the 1966 edition of Unobtrusive Measures:

 

Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences (Webb, E.,

 

Campbell, D., Schwartz, R., & Sechrest, L., 1966), the
authors noted: "Today, some 90% of social science research
is based upon interviews and questionnaires" (p. 22). Up-
dating their book in 1981, the writers considered the
intervening years as follows:

The mistaken belief in the operational

definition of theoretical terms has

permitted social scientists a compla-

cent and self-defeating dependence

upon single classes of measurement--

usually interviews or questionnaires.

In the 15 years since the first edi-

tion of this volume was prepared, we

do not think that such dependence has

changed much. (1981, p. 34)
A similar line of criticism is echoed by Carlson (1970) in
her article surveying personality research in two major
journals. Reviewing 266 "substantive articles" occurring

in a year's publication, she found an excessive overreli-

ance on undergraduates as subjects (73%), a predominance

of studies based on experimental procedures using some
kind of manipulation, and high rates of deception of sub-
jects (71%). Reflecting on these procedures, Carlson
wrote: "Personality psychology would seem to be paying an
exhorbitant price in potential knowledge for the security
afforded by preserving norms of convenience and methodolog-
ical orthodoxy" (1970, p. 207). This price is likely to be
especially inflated in research on sex differences because
the very process of interview-like investigations is often
fraught with subtle undercurrents and procedures (status
dynamics, sex of interviewer, nature of the task) which, by
their very nature, yield biased and unreliable results.
Given the equivocal state of research findings on sex
differences in social functioning, the recent prominence of
the women's movement, and the invariant research methodol-
ogies which have characterized much of this study, a new
approach seems warranted. Speaking to that goal, Forgas
(1976) has written: "In recent years, dissatisfaction with
atomistic and often irrelevant experimentation in social
psychology has led to growing interest in natural units of
behavior, such as social episodes" (1976, p. 199). The
present study will try to incorporate some of these sug-
gestions in the assessment of sex-specific differences in

conversational episodes.

10

Purpose

The purpose of this study is not to determine what
causes particular orientations in social episodes, but to
reinvestigate the proposition which holds gender to be in-
tegral to this equation. Therefore, this study has sought
to unobtrusively determine if 'self/other' differentiation,
thought to effectively discriminate male/female social
functioning, persists in the language behavior of naturally-
occurring, same and mixed-sex dyads. This dichotomy has
been selected over other possible dimensions due to the
abundance of research and theoretical material which iden-
tifies this distinction as fundamental, and due to its
adaptability to a coding system using raters in the field.
Secondarily, age of the coded interactant will be noted to
determine how it correlates with 'self/other' pronoun use.
These results will be discussed in light of the empirical
studies which have measured this relationship and the
general contributions of developmental theory (Erikson,
1950; Loevinger & Wessler, 1970). For instance, pronoun
use can be matched with the age of the speaker to deter-
mine if the orientation of the individual is consonant with
the 'otherness' of generativity (Erikson, 1950), or the
self-indulgence of late adolescence, or if the contextual
definition for women supersedes the impact of any age

category (Gilligan, 1982).

11

While these results will be discussed with regard to
previous empirical research and theory, the work is unique
in its effort to utilize a design which stresses the impor-
tance of unobtrusive measures and naturally occurring dyads.
Overriding these contributions, however, is the additional
value of the research when the results are evaluated within
the purview of a new perspective on human development.
Essentially, this view holds that men and women do, in
fact, speak with different voices, but value judgements
within the field of psychology have tended to portray those
differences as demeaning of female development, while en-

dorsing the male style (Gilligan, 1982).

Hypotheses:

 

l) The 'self-focus' of the dyads will vary significantly
from one another, with male-male dyads using the most self-
references and female-female dyads using the fewest number
of self-references.

2) The 'other-focus' of the dyads will vary significantly
from one another, with female-female dyads using the most
other-references and male-male dyads using the fewest
other-references.

3) 'Self-focus' will vary significantly as a function of
the sex and age of the speaker, with 18-30 year old males
using the most self-references and 31-50 year old females
using the fewest self-references.

4) 'Other-focus' will vary significantly as a function of
the sex and age of the speaker, with 30-50 year old females
using the most other-references and 18-30 year old men
using the fewest other-references.

12

Exploratory Studies:

 

In addition to the testing of the formal hypotheses,
two collateral studies were undertaken. Using the topics
coded by the raters, these statements were further evalu-
ated for the orientation of the statement and the specific
topic. Of particular interest was the sex of the dyad and
the sex of the speaker relative to the topic; and the
orientation of the statement given the sex of the dyad and
the age of the speaker. These findings were discussed in

light of the results of the hypothesis testing.

Overview:

 

In chapter II, the literature on sex-specific differ-
ences in social interaction will be reviewed. This cover-
age will be extensive, outlining some of the methodologies
utilized and reflecting the substantial research attention
given to this area. In chapter III, the design and method-
ology of this study will be clarified, including a discus-
sion of reliability and procedures for data analysis.
Chapter IV will present the results of the hypothesis test-
ing as well as the results of the supplementary analyses.
The study will be concluded in chapter V, with particular
attention to its strengths, limitations, and implications

for future research.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

 

As noted in chapter I, a number of empirical studies
have been performed to evaluate the theory of Gutman:
Bakan and Parsons and Bales. While some have sought to
directly assess the credibility of their theory, others
have taken a more global approach, investigating sex dif-
ferences in social interaction as only one factor among
several independent variables. Because of the substantial
amount of research that has been devoted to this topic,
the following review is selective. It will be organized
around the following descriptors: 1) sex differences in
social interaction will initially be restricted to indivi-
duals reacting to various experimental stimuli, and friend-
ship formation, followed by a review of the few studies on
sex differences in groups; 2) sex differences which have
been identified as a function of game theory; 3) socio-
linguistic studies of male/female differences in conversa-
tion. Although the literature to be presented in the last
part of this review is most similar to the actual design of
this study, the broad scope of this review is vital to both
the construction of the design as well as the question to

be answered.

13

14

Experimental Stimuli, Friendships, and Groups

 

Sex-related differences in the perception of others
and physical space have been studied by several researchers
(Carlson, 1971; Exline, 1963; Falbo, 1975; Holahan & Hola-
han, 1977, 1979; Kohn & Fiedler, 1961; Wood, 1966). In an
early study (Kohn & Fiedler, 1961), the researchers pre-
dicted that factors of gender and age would yield reliable
differences in the perception of other people. Consistent
with their hypotheses, the authors found that women tended
to view others in more favorable, less differentiated ways,
while the effect of age was less pervasive and seemed to be
significant only in the perception of self, younger sib-
lings and important adults. Discussing the females' ten-
dency to view others more favorably, the researchers con-
jectured that this may be "because they tend to be treated
more kindly by the world and they are less exposed to the
disillusioning interpersonal experiences" (1961, p. 163).

Carlson, in a direct effort to measure the credibility
of Bakan's and Gutman's constructs, had men and women
write brief personality sketches of someone "they knew
fairly well" (p. 269). In support of her hypotheses, and
the theorists' constructs, she noted males' tendency to
represent others in more "objective," "classifying" modes,
while women were less likely to use demographic labels.
Continuity of this divergence was also revealed with re-

gard to perceptions of the physical environment. Male and

15

female responses to the statement: "Describe the physical-
geographic environment (community, neighborhood, house, area
of the country) where you lived longest during the first ten
years of your life," (p. 270) showed sex-specific differ-
ences regarding the proximal or distal characterizations of
the answers. Female representations of this space tended to
be more "personal, memories of the inside," while males
described their scenes in more objective, physical terms
(distal), relying on environmental facts to recall the set-
tings. The author interpreted these differences to be re-
flective of a more basic communal, agency split and con-
cluded additional support for Bakan's and Gutman's dicho-
tomies.

The results of Carlson's work were reinforced and ela-
borated by Holahan and Holahan (1977, 1979) and Falbo (1975).
In the Holahan study, the researchers reasoned that vari-
able schematizations of the environment may not only be a
function of the observor's gender but, moreover, the diver-
gent interpretations may stem from personal characteristics
of the individual. Towards this end, the authors included
a measure of psychological masculinity and femininity
(Spence & Helmreich, 1978), independent of gender. Com-
menting on the subjects' written responses to descriptions
of their childhood and contemporary environments, the
authors found clear evidence of sex-linked schematiza-

tions, with males emphasizing "asocial," "impersonal," and

16

"individualistic" dimensions, while females focused on more
"personal attitudes, values, and opinions" and referred more
often to friends or qualities of friendship (1979, p. 232).
These results were interpreted as consonant with the posi-
tions of Gutman and Bakan. With respect to the psychologi-
cal aspects of gender, masculine traits were again most
frequently associated with impersonal and asocial descrip-
tors, while the high scores in personalization of the envi-
ronment and social emphasis were achieved by androygenous
types. The authors felt that this finding suggested that
masculine traits, when combined with feminine traits, aug-
mented rather than attenuated the latter.

Holahan's study essentially replicated Falbo's (1975)
earlier work on person and space-related perception. Using
Tajfel's (1969) notion of functional salience, the study
predicted that females and those with feminine traits would
be more attuned to person-related stimuli, while males and
those with masculine traits would focus on spatial charac-
teristics. While the relationship between gender and person-
related dimensions were straightforward and as expected, the
association between psychological masculinity and femininity
and the dependent variable was unanticipated. In fact, the
salience of person-related dimensions was most highly
correlated with those individuals who conformed least to
their appropriate gender, and not in the direction of high
feminine traits. This unexpected relationship was not

clearly understood by the authors, but it suggests that

17

more future studies on sex-differences need to consider
this psychological aspect.

While the previous studies have highlighted the pri-
macy of gender or masculine, feminine traits as determina-
tive of the qualities of social interaction, it is impor-
tant to state that this view is not unanimously shared by
all researchers. A popular alternative explanation sug-
gests that observed sex-differences in social interaction
may be related to power or status processes (Meeker &
Weitzel-O'Neill, 1977; Ridgeway, 1978; Thune, E., Mander-
scheid, R., & Silbergeld, S., 1980a, 1980b). Briefly sum-
marizing this position, it holds that one's social perfor-
mance is largely evaluated on the individual's external
status or perceived competence. Furthermore, the theory
assumes that members with higher status need not prove
group-oriented motivation, while lower-status individuals
must concentrate on other-focus. Since it is assumed that
men, by virtue of their gender, are granted a higher sta-
tus, the theory holds that reduced other-focus by males can
be understood as a function of their higher status and not
by narrower conceptions of gender (Berger, Cohen, & Zel-
ditch, 1972).

This conception has been empirically tested by re-
searchers (Thune et al., 1980a, 1980b) with compelling
evidence for the role of status dynamics. The authors

found that a group of married partners (males representing

18

higher status) divided along expected socioemotional, in-
strumental lines, while a mixed group of professional tea-
chers (status assumed equal) showed no such sterotypic
split. These conclusions, indeed, demonstrate a need for
further research on the impact of status and power factors
on social interaction, nevertheless, numerous studies indi-
cate that sterotypic dichotomies of sex-specific roles are
often more variable in families than other groups (Waxler &
Misler, 1970).

Studies have also attempted to highlight salient dif-
ferences in sex-linked social interaction by investigating
the gender of those involved (Aries, 1976; Ickes & Barnes,
1978; Ickes, Schermer, & Steeno, 1970; Piliavin & Martin,
1978; Walker, 1981). Underlying this manipulation is the
belief that individuals, when grouped entirely with members
of their own sex, will be more likely to express those
themes and patterns of interaction most preferred by that
sex. Aries (1976), in an attempt to isolate the content
and manner of interaction unique to males and females,
organized six groups: two of which were all-male, two
all-female, and two mixed. After five sessions of "trying
to get to know each other better," she noted that the all-
male group interacted in a manner significantly distinct
from the all-female. Most apparent, the males established
a more stable dominance order and tended to talk to the
group as a whole unit, while women were more flexible with

regard to leadership functions and more inclined to focus

19

on one-to-one relationships. Differences were also record-
ed with respect to the content of the material discussed.
Citing the dimensions of intimacy and openness, the study
found:

Males in the all male group talked very

little of themselves, their feelings or

their relationships with significant

others. In the all-female group, on the

other hand, members shared a great deal

of information about themselves, their

feelings, their homes, and their rela-

tionships with family, friends and

lovers. (p. 12)
Her study also identified a difference between the sexes in
terms of their preoccupation with themes of competition and
aggression while males were very concerned with sizing up
other males and discovering who was the most knowledgeable
about movies, books, travel, etc...., women were more apt
to disregard distinctions and, in general, downplay differ-
ences in favor of common feelings and shared experiences.
Interestingly, this study found that in the mixed groups,
men showed more expressive behaviors, but this change
seemed to be purchased at the expense of greater role
restrictiveness for women.

Piliavin and Martin (1978) used Parsons and Bales'
expressive and instrumental constructs to distinguish the
relative impact of group composition and one's gender on
an individual's group behavior. Similar to Aries' study,
the authors formed all-male, all-female, and mixed groups

and had the members discuss three social problems. Con-

trary to the previous study, however, these researchers

20

hypothesized that the overriding necessity of having both
instrumental and expressive functions present in a group
would tend to suppress expressive modalities in all-female
groups in favor of more instrumental ones, while all-male
groups would show a similar reversal of orientation. Dis-
cussing the studies' failure to support the "suppression
hypothesis", the authors noted that the:

strongest and clearest finding in this

study is that the behavior of individuals

in groups...is determined to a much greater

degree by his/her sex, than by the compo-

sition of the group in which they are in-

teracting. Women engaged in more socio-

emotional behaviors than did the men, while

men engaged in more task behaviors than

woman. (p. 293)
Data from the mixed-sex group showed both genders maintain-

ing their sterotypic dispositions, with no significant de-

viations.

Friendships

 

Lional Tiger's (1969) belief that men have a biologic-
ally transmitted and culturally reinforced propensity to
form bonds with other men which are inherently more stable
and stronger than females, has served as an impetus for
research in the area of same-sex friendships (Booth, 1972;
Gibbs et al., 1978; Wheeler & Mezlek, l977)-and provided
another vantage point to observe sex—differences in social
interaction. Booth (1972) surveyed the similarities and

differences of men's and women's social participation in

21

friendship dyads, voluntary associations, and kin relations
and found no support for Tiger's hypothesis, and some evi-
dence which directly contradicted the theory. More speci—
fically, the study did not find any overall differences in
the number of friendships for men and women, but female
associations were "affectively richer and more spontane-
ous" (p. 186) than males. Gibbs et al.'s (1978) study,
like Booth's, attempted to challenge Tiger's formulation
by investigating the qualitative aspects of same-sex
friendships. The authors predicted female friendships
would have higher altruistic and empathic components than
males, while males would have a stronger companionship
dimension (the qualities were strictly defined in the
study). Secondly, and in conjunction with Tiger's theory,
it was believed that men would View women as more un-
friendly than other men. Analyzing the responses to sen-
tence stems, the authors found no differences in the qual-
ities of friendship desired by either sex. Rather, the
data showed both genders to be primarily attracted to
relationships where the dominant ethic was one of empathy,
”the sharing of one's innermost thoughts and feelings with
a trusted other" (p. 263). Discussing the study's failure
to discriminate between sexes and the values sought in
relationships, the researchers cited the subjects' age

and the university setting: "Students are deeply involved
in the processes of mutual self-discovery and self-

definition which are articulated largely through close

22

interpersonal relationships" (p. 270). With regard to the
second prediction, the authors were surprised to observe
results suggesting that male-male friendships, more often
than female's, were mediated by hostility. Both men and
women viewed females as more friendly and more capable of
forming empathic, altruistic relationships, a direct,
strong, rebuttal to Lionel Tiger.

Other researchers, investigating the nature of inter-
action in same and mixed-sex friendships have specifically
considered the impact of age in their work (Candy, 1977;
Powers & Buttena, 1976; Weiss & Lowenthal, 1973). Weiss
and Lowenthal (1973), analyzing the complexities and
friendship patterns of individuals during four stages of
the life cycle found sex-differences more predictive of
these facets than stage differences. They found that at
all stages of the life cycle, men emphasized "commonality",
defined as those qualities that explicitly state a sharing
or common base to the relationship. If being similar is
important, either in personalities, interests, ideas,
values, and attitudes, or in the sharing of attitudes or
experiences, then the emphasis of friendship belongs in
this dimension (p. 773), while women, on the other hand,
stress the importance of "reciprocity" (defined as: help-
ing or supporting is the focus, whether it be a dependency,
an understanding or an acceptance of each other, a confid-

ing in, or simply a trusting of one another...requires a

23

higher degree of involvement or commitment on the level of
emotional expression (p. 773). Furthermore, on a measure
which characterized the type of relationships which indi-
viduals had, versus those they ideally wanted, the authors
found that not only do "women develop closer, more emotion-
ally oriented relationships with their friends than do men,
but this more involved interaction is experienced as a
desired relationship more often than it is actualized (p.
774).

Candy's (1977) study of friendship functions in six
age groups of men and women identified three primary bases
for relationships and found some significant correlations
between age and these three factors: 1. intimacy-assis-
tance, 2. status, and 3. power. For instance, women from
adolescence through their fifties rated friendships as un-
important for status reasons, while women over sixty years
of age found status integral to relationships. Although
males showed no significant differences between age groups
and functions of friendship, they did demonstrate a stead-
ily growing value for intimacy-assistance as age increased.
Overall, intimacy-assistance was more valued by women in
their same-sex relationships than by men, however, no sig-
nificant correlations were found for functions of friend-
ship and mixed-sex dyads.

Powers and Buttena (1976) restricted their study to
the role of friendship in old age. Contrary to the general

stereotype, they found that males had more social contacts

24

than females, and did so more often, but that these con-
tacts were very limited in their diversity. The authors
speculated that the preponderance of male suicide in old
age may, in part, be related to this constricted object
choice, while

the greater female versatility in the choice

of the objects of intimate relationships may

partly explain the greater female adaptabil-

ity to survival. Perhaps it is the diversity

in all forms of social contact, not just in

intimate relationships, that contributes to

greater female adaptability in later life.

(p. 745)

Before concluding this section and beginning a review
of the game-theory literature, a finding which has run
throughout much of the work to this point will be made
explicit. A number of the studies cited have found female
social interactions, friendships, or perspectives to be.
more Open, intimate, richer in affect, expressive of emo-
tion, personal, empathic,.and so on. Although it is not
strictly accurate, many of these behaviors can be subsumed
under the label of self-disclosing. This behavior has been
the subject of a great deal of research attention (Cozby,
1973), and although the conclusions are generally unclear,
there is more agreement when the behavior is further spec-
ified in terms of possible sex differences.

While Cozby's review (1973) found that there were as
many studies showing no sex differences in the amount of

disclosure, as finding females to be higher disclosures, no

studies reported higher rates for males. This ambiguity is

25

not expressed by Jourard (1971) who identifies what he con-
sidered to be the "lethal aspects of male inexpressive-
ness." Kraft and Vraa (1975) found all-female communication
groups to be significantly more revealing than a similar
mixed-group. Morgan (1976) speculated that the failure of
self-disclosure research to yield more consistent results
could be traced to a failure to consider the intimacy level
of the topic. He reasoned that sex differences would be
more distinct when correlated with highly intimate material
and not significant when the subject was less personal.

The findings indicated males to be significantly less likely
to disclose when the topic was of a highly sensitive nature.
Chernulik (1979) further dissected the behavior of
self-disclosure and found women to be more emotionally ex-

pressive, but differentiated this facial activity from a
conclusion of greater emotionality. This distinction is
similar to Hoffman's (1977) finding that while women are
vicariously more empathic than men, they do not appear to
be more adept at assessing another person's affective, cog-
nitive, or spatial perspective.

These few studies suggest that when self-disclosure
behavior is correlated with sex-difference, reliable dis-
tinctions may emerge, but the generalizability of these

findings may be very limited.

26

Game Theory and Sex—Differences

 

Studies employing various games (Prisoner's Dilemma,
the Executive Game, Chicken, Acme-Bolt Trucking Game) af-
ford another perspective from which one can analyze self-
other orientation in social interaction. Using these acti-
vities, researchers have focused on a number of different
behaviors, including: conformity, conflict processes,
decision-making, coalition formation, leadership dynamics,
problem-solving, and cooperation, in an effort to under-
stand how they correlate with various characteristics of
the individual or the group, including: status variables,
gender, factors of age and size of the group. Prior to
considering the contributions these studies have made to
the literature of sex-differences in social interaction, a
famous study, in a related vein, is cited.

An early and well-known study in this area was con-
ducted by Strodtbeck and Mann (1955). The study attempted
to determine if the instrumental/expressive dichotomy,
specified by Parsons and Bales, would carry over from pri-
mary groups to a type of ad hoc problem-solving group--a
12 person jury deliberation. Given the random process of
jury selection, it was felt that the subjects would be
markedly differentiated in terms of age, occupational role,
and SES variables and, therefore, any significant inter-
action of these factors and patterns of interaction would

be especially highlighted.

27

Discussing the results, the authors found their hypo-
theses supported, with women behaving more in a socioemo-
tional manner, while men demonstrated more task behavior.
This labelling was predicated on an analysis of verbal in-
teractions using Bales' interactional scoring format, which
found women more likely to "agree," "show tension release,"
and show "solidarity," while men were more inclined to
"give opinion," "give suggestions," and "give orientation."
Summarizing the data, the authors felt they had demon-
strated continuity of the instrumental/expressive dichotomy
from primary groups to jury deliberations.

If the task of jury deliberation can be grossly con-
ceptualized as an exercise in problem resolution, then the
specific behaviors of conformity, cooperation, and coali-
tion formation should be more than peripherally related to
this task and, hence, warrant further inspection.

The Prisoner's Dilemma (PD) game has consistently
shown sex-differences regarding player strategies (Hottes
& Kahn, 1974; Kahn, Hottes, & Davies, 1971; Rapoport &
Chammah, 1965). Essentially, the game highlights the
dimensions of cooperation and competition and requires the
participants to blindly try and match or predict his/her
opponent's responses. Rapoport and Chammah labelled the
choices "individual rationality" versus "collective ration-

ality" (1963, p. 831).

28

Kahn et a1. (1971) conjectured that the sex-linked
variation in strategy could be attributed to the divergent
goals of the sexes, with males more attuned to strategic
considerations (i.e., winning and losing), while females
stressed the social aspects of the situation (i.e., sex and
physical attractiveness of the opponent). Hottes and Kahn
(1974) extended the work of Kahn et a1. (1971) by investi-
gating how sex-specific strategies varied when the players
were allowed opportunities for conversation. It was as-
sumed that male-male scores would improve because they
would use the occasion to discuss strategy, while female-
female scores would show little variation because they
would ignore strategic consultations in lieu of more inter-
personal matters. Discussing the results, the authors
found all their hypotheses supported. While the males
quickly figured out how to win and maximize their points,
the females seemed to eschew any approach to the game which
was associated with winning.

While the females' behavior might appear
'irrational' from a male perspective, it
is only if one assumes the goal of maxi-
mizing outcomes (points, money, credit).
However, it has been suggested by a num-
ber of writers that females are not
achievement oriented, but socially oriented
or accommodative. If so, maximizing out-
comes would be only tangentially related
to this goal of achieving a pleasant situa-
tion. (1974, p. 271)

These conclusions were also supported by Vinacke

(1959) in game situations involving all-male and all-female

triads. In competative situations, the patterns of

29

coalition formation showed sex-linked variations, with fe-
males coalescing when it was disadvantageous and failing to
come together when it was to their favor.

A reasonable interpretation to the over-

all picture is that females are less con-

cerned with winning, as such, and more

concerned with arriving at a fair and

friendly solution to the problem. The

task for them appears to be to determine

a way in which no one suffers at the ex-

pense of anyone else. (1959, p. 357)
This pattern was also shown to endure (Bond & Vinacke,
1960) when the groups were no longer homogeneous with res-
pect to sex. Again, females adopted an "accommodative"
strategy and males relied on an "exploitive" design.

Wiley (1974) dissented partially from the findings
presented by previous researchers and found that the oppor-
tunity for communication showed the most significant impact
on male-female levels of cooperation. This finding is
listed as a partial reservation because, ultimately, it was
related to the existence of traditional sex roles, with men
being protective of women and women acquiescing to the
male's presumed strength.

This brief review of game theory research seems to be
generally consonant with the literature regarding sex dif-
ferences in social orientation. Across different beha-
viors and in groups homogeneous regarding sex, strong sex-
linked preferences persist. These conclusions, however,

must confront an important methodological criticism before

they warrant unequivocal endorsement. Namely, it has been

30

suggested by other researchers (Hansson, Allen, & Jones,
1980; Milton, 1959; Sistrunk & McDavid, 1971; Uesugi &
Winacke, 1963; Wiley, 1974) that the sex differences which
these studies document may be more symptomatic of the role
appropriateness of.the task (Milton, 1959) or the masculine
bias which pervades these numerical games (Wiley, 1974)
than gender differences. Although few studies have con-
sidered this point (Sassen, 1980; Uesugi & Vinacke, 1963),
it is a very tenable criticism and one which is receiving
increasing attention as women seek to avoid the negative
labelling often associated with these evaluations of their

performances (Gilligan, 1982).

Contributions of Language Studies

 

As the previous portion of this chapter has indicated,

one's gender influences various aspects of social behavior.
Recently, social linguists and those investigators con-
cerned with the function and structure of language have
shown an increasing appreciation of this fact through the
direction of their research. The following statement by
Barron (1971) effectively explicates their rationale:

If the distinctions suggested by empirical
studies of nonlinguistic sex differences
correspond in meaning to distinctions adher-
ent to language categories, and if corres-
ponding linguistic and nonlinguistic dis-
tinctions manifest themselves within persons
in a straightforward fashion suggested by

the common meaning features which they share,
then nonlinguistic differences which distin-
guish males and females will predict to analo-
gous language differences of the sexes. (p. 27)

31

The remainder of this literature review will examine
those empirical and non-empirical studies which have
focused on gender as integral to functional language dis-
tinctions, with particular attention paid to differences
in 'self-other' focus. No attempt will be made to examine

the research on structural aspects.

Ethnographic/Anecdotal Research

 

Although the amount of empirical research in this area
is increasing, the field is strongly characterized by in-
trospective and anecdotal methodologies, with few experi-
mental studies (Thorne & Henley, 1975). It is generally

conceded that Otto Jesperson's text: Language: Its

 

Nature, Origin and Development (1922) was the first to pro-

 

vide an extensive treatment of sex differences. Relying on
old ethnographies, novels, and statements by prominent
individuals, he provided several generalizations regarding
both functional and structural differences. In his chapter
on "The Woman," he surmized that sex differences were most
likely a function of the division of labor.

The importance which Jesperson attached to the divi-
sion of labor and its impact on language topic have been
reaffirmed by more contemporary authors (Bernard, 1972;
Harding, 1975; Klein, 1965; Komarovsky, 1962; Kramer, 1974;
Langer, 1970). In a case study of 58 blue-collar mar-

riages, Komarovsky (1962) noted the sharp, divergent

32

interests held by husbands and wives and how they contri-
buted to barriers in communication: "What does she have
to talk about? Dirty diaper stuff. I don't care about
that. She talks about the children, but we both see what
is happening. We are both there..."(p. 149). Or the wife:
"Regular guys don't mess around with women except when they
want what a woman's got to give them. Men and women are
different. The fellows got their interests and the girls
got theirs, they each go their separate ways" (p. 150).
Langer (1970) observed a similar demarcation of conversa-
tional interests during the three months of working and
observing at the telephone company. There women avoided
religion and politics while in the men's department these
tOpics were commonplace. Bernard (1972), following the
work of Parsons & Bales (1955) labelled the distinctions
"expressive talk" versus "instrumental talk" and Kramer
(1974) found further evidence of the dichotomy by by ana-
lyzing 156 cartoons in the "New Yorker,"

Men hold forth with authority on business,

politics, legal matters, taxes, age, house-

hold expenses, electronic bugging, church

collections, kissing, baseball, human rela-

tions and--women's speech. Women discuss

social life, books, food and drink, porno-

graphy, life's troubles, caring for a hus-

band, social work, age, and lifestyles.

(p. 83)
Other researchers (Harding, 1975; Klein, 1965) have shown
that sex-specific topics are not simply peculiar to Wes-

tern industrial cultures. Harding (1975), in an ethnogra-

phic study of an agrarian village in Spain wrote:

33

Our work cuts channels in our world of
words, creating certain clusters of top-
ics and concerns. Thus the division of
labor between the sexes in Oroel becomes
a division of their use of language as
well.

In their talk and thought, village men
are primarily occupied with the land and
what pertains to it--crops, the weather,
prices, wages, inheritance, work animals,
and machinery. In casual dialogue, a

man is interested in what a person thinks,
and what a person knows, and does as a
larger social and economic being in the
public sphere. His main verbal focus,
however, is on his own concerns, not any-
one else's.

The talk and thought of women are wrapped
around people and their personal lives.
The first thing a woman wants to know when
she meets someone is about her family. In
her daily life in the home and village, a
woman is likewise more interested in how
someone feels than in what someone thinks,
in who a person is, and what a person does
in private, rather than the public sphere.
If a man's world of words revolves more
around objects and his own concerns, a
woman's revolves more around subjects,
around persons and their concerns.

(pp. 286-87)

Haas (1979), surveying the folk wisdom and anecdotal evi-

dence of spoken language differences, summarized the find-

ings as follows:

Women's speech is said to contain more
euphemisms, politeness forms, apology,
laughter, crying, and unfinished sen-
tences. They are reputed to talk more
about home and family and to be more
emotional and positively evaluative.
Further, women's speech is stereotyped
as nonassertive, tentative, and suppor-
tive. Women are also said to talk more
than men.

34

Men, on the other hand, are reputed
to use more slang, profanity, and
obscenity and to talk more about
sports, money and business. They are
reputed to make more hostile judge-
ments, and to use language to lecture,
argue, debate, assert and command.

(p. 623)

Empirical Language Studies

While introspective and ethnographic methodologies are
particularly well suited to descriptive analyses of lan-
guage differences, recently linguists have sought to pro-
vide empirical validation for these hypotheses. The fol-
lowing material will highlight some of the procedures and
conclusions of the empirical studies. As will be evident
throughout this discussion, many of the researchers have,
explicitly or implicitly, organized their studies around
the theoretical dichotomies sited at the outset of this
review (Bales, Gutman, Bakan) and several of those method-
ologies have been preserved by the linguists.

Hirschman (1973) analyzed six dyadic conversations
between females and males to determine if the episodes
differed for certain speech characteristics, and "flow of
conversation." Although her conclusions must be cautious-
ly regarded given the extremely small sample, she listed
the following results: 1) male conversants were more like-
ly to argue, while females tended to elaborate on each
other's utterances, 2) females used a greater number of

pronouns involving the other person, while males showed the

35

reverse, 3) no difference in the number of qualifiers
(e.g., maybe, sort of, I think), and 4) females interrupted
each other more than any other pair.

Building on the findings from her earlier work,
Hirschman (1974) hypothesized that females would be more
supportive in conversational behavior, while males would be
more assertive. Assertiveness was measured by instances of
interrupting, talking a lot, not losing the floor to an
interrupter, few qualifiers (maybe, sort of, I think), and
few fillers. Supportiveness was measured by the frequency
of affirmative words (yeah, right, mm hmm) and asking ques-
tions to draw out the other speaker. Discussing the re-
sults which did not support her hypothesis, the author
cited the socially awkward experimental procedures, the
possibility that the constructs, as operationalized, were
inaccurate, and the severely restricted sample size.

Gleser, Gottschalk, and Watkins (1959) sought to
correlate factors of gender and intelligence to specific
word choice. Each subject gave a five minute Speech on
"any interesting or dramatic life experience he/she could
recall," and the words were subsequently classified as to
their grammatical or psychological function. While most
I.Q. differences were correlated with grammatical catego-
ries, the researchers found that females "used a very
significantly higher percentage of words implying feeling,

emotion, or motivation, whether positive, negative or

36

neutral" (1959, p. 188). On the other hand, men showed
greater use of words implying time, space, quantity, and
destructive action.

This 'objective-emotional' dichotomy has been reported
by other researchers employing various stimuli to elicit
sex-specific language styles (Swacker, 1973; Warshay, 1971;
Wood, 1966). In a multi-faceted experimental procedure,
Wood (1966) investigated correlations between sex of speak-
er, sex of recipient, and success or failure of the commu-
nication with the number of words uttered and lexical
characteristics of the clues given by the speaker. Of in-
terest to this review, Wood found that the differences in
the clues given were most related to the sex of the speaker
with no significant speaker-recipient interaction. More
specifically, female hints were typified by their "cre-
atively interpretive," (1966, p. 129) impressionistic
style, while males relied on a more empirical approach,
suggesting observable, physical referents to the photo-
graphs in question. Wood concluded that the divergent
styles might be related to Bales' notion of role differen-
tiation.

Warshay (1971) had 263 college students write des-
criptions of events important to them and analyzed the
transcripts for specific sex differences. Reporting the
results, she found males to be "more active, more ego-
involved in what he does and less concerned with others"

(p. 8), while females were less time-oriented and referred

37

more to others. In a later study utilizing the same data,
Warshay (1979) correlated age and marital status with sex
differences in language style and found that being married
had an effect similar to being female in that both were
related to affectivity in language. Age appeared to in-
crease instrumentality and affectivity when they were al-
ready predominate.

Barron (1971) asserting that the wealth of evidence on
sex differences in non-linguistic behavior was likely to
have an analog in linguistics, hypothesized that

the speech of men would be characterized

by action and projection of themselves as

actors upon the environment, while the

language of women would be concerned with

internal states and behaviors which would

integrate other persons with themselves

into the social situation. (p. 29)
In order to test her assumptions, she used grammatical case
as a unit of analysis and collected videotaped samples of
language interaction from eight different suburban and
inner city classrooms. Analyzing the tapes for particular
cases, Barron found four of the seven cases predicted
significant differences in the anticipated direction, while
two of the remaining three cases were in the predicted
direction, but not significant. She summarized her results
as follows:

Women produced a significantly greater

proportion of explicit participative

cases than men thus demonstrating their

greater concern with internal psycholo-
gical states. The greater involvement

38

of men with implementation of action by

means of objects was shown by their

greater use of instrumental and source

cases. Men produced a significantly

greater proportion of objective cases,

thus verbally emphasizing things acted

upon. (p. 39)
The author felt the results conclusively demonstrated sex-
linked differences in content, patterns, and emphasis of
language use. i

Dutch researchers (Brouwer, Gerritsen, & De Haan,
1979), seeking to enhance and expand the methodologies used
by sociolinguists in the assessment of sex-specific lan-
guage differences, observed the ticket buying behavior of
railroad passengers. Specifically, the authors considered
how factors of: sex of speaker, sex of addressee (ticket
seller), age of speaker, and time of purchase would corre-
late with the number of words used and forms of language
expressing insecurity (repetitions, hesitations, self-
corrections, requests for information). Data was surrep-
titiously tape recorded for 587 ticket transactions and
while no explicit hypotheses were stated, the authors pre-
dicted that women would appear less secure in their lan-
guage behavior than men.
Discussing their results, the authors found minimal

support for the greater insecurity of female versus male
speech. In fact, the independent variable which corre-

lated highest with the dependent measures was sex of ad-

dressee (ticket seller), and this was true for both sexes.

39

The authors concluded by emphasizing the importance of the
sex of interviewer or addressee in future research pro-
jects.

A sizable body of research revolves around Lakoff's
(1973) assertion that a "women's language" exists as a sub-
entity of human language and, more importantly, that femi-
mine language is marked by its trivial nature, avoidance of
strong statement and uncertainty (Baumann, 1976; Crosby &
Nyquist, 1977; Dubois & Crouch, 1975; McMillian, Clifton,
McGrath, & Gale, 1977; Newcombe & Arnoff, 1978; Siegler &
Siegler, 1976). While her claims are based on examina-
tions of her own speech (introspective) and that of ac-
quaintances, she does specify those dimensions which dis-
tinguish it from male speech. Namely, women tend to use
weaker expletives than men (oh dear, goodness, versus shit,
damn), adjectives which trivialize female speech (charming,
adorable, lovely, versus male or 'neutral' adjectives;
great, terrific, neat), and more tag questions which convey
uncertainty ("John is there, isn't he?" versus the more
direct form, "Is John there?").

Dubois and Crouch (1975), aside from leveling a num-
ber of methodological salvos at Lakoff's hypothesis, zero
in on the prominence of tag questions in female language.
The authors reviewed videotapes of a question-answer ses-
sion from a professional conference, with particular atten-

tion to the use of tag questions, and found that of the 33

40

examples, all were spoken by men. Although the authors
note the many methodological shortcomings of their informal
study, they maintain that the data support a need for fur-
ther inquiry into Lakoff's claim.

Siegler and Siegler (1976) used parallel designs to
test the hypothesis that: 1) assertive statements would be
more often attributed to males and less to females, and 2)
forms associated with males would be rated more intelligent
and those associated with females less so. Discussing the
responses made by 48 undergraduate males and 48 undergra-
duate females to a paper and pencil test, the authors found
the direction of the findings "in complete accord with Lak-
off's theory, with tag questions most attributed to women,
and strong assertions most often attributed to men..." (p.
169). Furthermore, the researchers found a significant
positive correlation between the rated level of assertion
and beliefs about the intelligence of the speaker, with
male assertive statements judged as more intelligent than
females. Consonant with Lakoff's hypothesis, McMillan et
al. (1977) reasoned that women, more than men, would use
more syntax categories indicative of uncertainty than
would males and that these incidents would increase when
men were present. In a third hypothesis, the authors felt
that men would also interrupt women more than women would

interrupt men.

41

Data was gathered from videotape sessions of all male,
all female, and mixed problem-solving groups. The experi-
menters conducted a content analysis of the tapes for four
syntactic categories; 1) intensifiers--"just," "so,"
"vastly", 2) modal constructions--expresses doubtfulness
about occurrence of an event, "may," "might," "could", 3)
tag questions--"The war in Angola is tragic, isn't it?",
and 4) imperative constructions--questions substitued for
commands, "Will you please close the door?" versus "Close
the door." and number of interruptions. The independent
variables were the sex of the subject, the sex composition
of the group, and the dependent measure was the frequency
of occurrence of each category.

Analyzing the results of their study, the experi-
menters found that women used all four syntax categories
significantly more frequently than men and that three of
the four forms (intensifiers excluded) were used noticeably
more often when males were present. Male language showed
no significant variation from group to group. With regard
to the interruption hypothesis, the researchers found that
males were twice as likely to cut-off women as women would
interrupt men and, furthermore, when women did interrupt,
they were more likely to break in on another woman.

It is interesting to note, however, that although the
results seemed to confirm Lakoff's hypothesis, the authors

speculated that the findings might be more reflective of

42

the norms and values esteemed in women's subculture. Sta-
ted more directly, they felt one could judge these results
as expressing 'uncertainty' from a male perspective, while
it is equally arguable that this language style is simply
reinforcing the female emphasis on interpersonal closeness
and emotionality. Interestingly, this interpretation is
very similar to the one offered by Hottes and Kahn (1974)
in their discussion of "irrational" female behavior in com-
petitive games.

Newcombe and Arnoff (1978) had two males and two fe-
males tape record messages using, or not using, three of
Lakoff's linguistic variables (qualifiers, tag questions,
and compound requests) which are believed to convey polite-
ness and insecurity. College students were then asked to
"give their impressions of the person talking" (p. 1297)
and specifically, if he/she seemed assertive, polite, or
warm. The authors predicted that the use of three lin-
guistic forms and not sex of the speaker would predict
higher ratings of warmth, unassertiveness, and politeness.
As anticipated, and supportive of Lakoff's intuition, the
results showed that person perception was most signifi-
cantly correlated with style of speech and not sex of
speaker. These findings were replicated when older age
adults from the community were substituted for the college-

age raters.

43

Summary

This literature review has intentionally presented a
broad examination of the issues relevant to the study of
sex-differences in social interaction, with particular
emphasis on the 'self/other' distinction. The summary has
encompassed the behavior of various individuals and groups
regarding: language styles and themes, competitive games,
friendship dynamics, and reactions to inanimate stimuli.
Of equal importance, this presentation has also attempted
to highlight some of the procedures specific to this re-
search.

While dominant themes do exist in this area, at best
they are fragile and highly dependent upon the methodolog-
ical procedure which has defined them. Secondarily, the
assumptions which persist as conventional knowledge or
'folk wisdom' are frequently dispelled when more rigorous
and exacting procedures are utilized. And, finally, the
review has also documented an overreliance on certain
research practices and samples and a disregard for tech-

niques which could clarify and enhance existing knowledge.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

 

This chapter covers the following areas: sample, in-
strumentation, reliability, research procedures, design,
research hypotheses, and procedures for the analysis of

the data.

Sample

In an 18 week period, February 28 to the middle of
July, 1983, five trained coders collected a total of 480
conversational episodes. The conversations were gathered
throughout the state of New Hampshire and from 64 possible
locations, including: laundromats, bars, restaurants,
malls, hospitals, recreational areas, banks, bus stations,
and libraries. The following restrictions further defined
the sample selected: 1) neither interactant could be less
than 18 years of age, 2) English-speaking dyads only, 3)
groups consisting of more than two individuals were ineli-
gible for coding, and 4) no person could be coded more than
once. Additionally, the coders were restricted to certain
quotas, requiring a percentage of speakers from given sex
vand age categories, addressing same and opposite sex lis-
teners. Coders were also limited to the frequency which

they could utilize each location.

44

45

Instrumentation

 

Subsequent to a pilot study which field tested differ-
ent formats of the instrument, the following model was a-
dopted. Each coder received a 4x6 inch spiral notebook
with directions to subdivide each page into a 5x3 matrix.
The five rows corresponded to independent groups of person-
al and impersonal pronouns, while the three columns repre-
sented the eight second intervals to be coded. Aside from
noting the frequency of each pronoun group used during each
successive eight second interval, raters were asked to code
the topic of the interaction using the following stem:
"He/she talked about," and to specify some descriptive
data, such as, ages and sexes of the interactants, date,
time, location, and coder identification number. A diagram
of the instrument and procedures for training the raters

are included on the following page and in appendix A.

Reliability

 

Reliability refers to the accuracy and consistency of
the measuring instrument. With regard to this project, it
was important to determine how accurately the individual
coders could correctly rate spoken dialogues. Towards this
end, practice dialogues were developed for study and dis-
cussion by the group, followed by monthly administrations
of sample vignettes to be rated by each coder. In an ef-

fort to approximate the actual data collection process, two

46

8 second intervals I II III

 

Self: I, Me, My,
Mine, Myself

 

Other: He, His, Him
Himself, She,
Her, Hers,
Herself, They,
Their, Theirs,
Themselves,
Them

 

Selves: We, Our, Ours,
Us, Ourselves

 

Neuter: It, Its,

 

 

 

 

 

Itself
Dyad: M/M, F/F, M/F, F/M
Age: 18-30, 31-50, 51-+
Date: Month/Day/Year
Time: (2400 hours)
Location:
Topic: "He/She talked about..."

I.D. number:

FIGURE 3.1: Coding Instrument

47

individuals would read the scripts to the coders. The
written material was developed by an interested volunteer,
contingent upon guidelines set forth by this writer. In
general, the dialogues (appendix B) were designed to re-
flect casual conversation between two individuals, with a
conscious effort made to include a representative sample
of all possible pronouns. A total of 20 scripts was de-
veloped for the establishment of reliability, each monthly
measure consisting of five vignettes.

Of a possible 247 pronouns spoken, the following per-
centages of correct coding were achieved: coder A, 97.1%,
coder B, 96.7%, coder C, 91.4%, coder D, 93.5%, and coder
E, 93.5%. In general, there was a marked improvement in
coder accuracy over the four administrations, evidence that
continued practice with the instrument was yielding more
precise notations. On only two occasions did coders error
by noting a pronoun which did not occur. This misjudgement
was treated as an error of omission and subtracted from the
coder's total score. Furthermore, on the four occasions
when no pronouns were spoken, all coders accurately noted
this fact, indicating a consistent accuracy for charting
absence of pronouns.

The following graphs depict each rater's total number
of responses in contrast to the actual number of pronouns
present. Each of the four pages represent a separate

administration of five vignettes. In sum, the percentages

.H cofiumuumwcfl6p< wuwaflnmaawm um.m Gunman

mrH mmuuocmfl>

 

 

 

 

 

m Dnum < m Chum <

 

48

ed
NH
«a
ma
ma

om

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OH
NH
vH
0H
ma

om

u muopou

‘CQUDM
KW

/. z .2534 u I

.HH coflumnumfl:fi5o« >uwawnmaamm "m.m ousofim

calm mouuocmfl>

 

 

 

 

m QHum d

 

49

 

OH

NH

vH

ma

ma

om

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SCIDUQFIJ

Z A<DBU¢

OH
NH
va
ma
ma

om

.HHH coflumuumwcflspm unflaflnmwaom ”v.m ousmflm

erHH mouuocmfl>

50

 

\ mm

mm

H muwoou NH

‘CIZJUQI'JJ

z Epsom u '

.>H coflumuumflcflEps >uwHAQMHHmm "m.m wusmflm

ONIGH monumcmfl>

0

51

 

ma ma ma

om om

u muopou

mmuom

/

z Epsom n I

52

achieved by each coder attests to his/her accuracy in
coding the dialogues. These figures are particularly im-
pressive when one notes the frequency of pronoun occurrence
in the reliability samples (M = 12.3) versus the average

occurrence of pronouns in the actual data (M = 8.35).

Research Procedures

 

Three men and two women were hired and trained to
gather the data. Central to the selection of these indi-
viduals was the fact that they were known to this writer,
felt to be conscientious and of high integrity, while also
sufficiently mobile, with frequent access to many different
settings. Upon completion of training (appendix A), raters
were given a codebook, copy of the training manual, and a
scoresheet for dyad and location summaries. In addition
to the monthly reliability checks, frequent contact between
this writer and the raters was maintained. O

Data collection could be done at any time and at any
location, providing that the coded individuals met the
study's criteria and that the location frequencies were
not violated. Three coders were responsible for collecting
120 cases each, while the other two were responsible for 60
dialogues apiece. Raters gathering 120 cases were asked to
approximate a rate of one case per day to insure an even

distribution over the duration of the study.

53

In the field, using discontinuous time probe sampling
(Sackett, 1978), observers were instructed to unobtrusively
position him/herself within hearing distance of a codable
dyad and to chart 24 seconds of the 'speaker's' conversa-
tion. 'Speaker' was initially defined by the toss of a
coin, but quota restrictions and concerns for anonymity
eventually led to the designation of 'speaker' as that per-
son most easily codable and/or necessary for the rater's
quota. Dialogues coded in excess of the fixed quota were
saved and submitted with the other data.

In order to assure that the individuals were engaged
in conversation, with each person contributing to the ex-
change, the initial 8 seconds of 'speaker' talk had to be
followed by 8 seconds of '1istener' talk. Therefore, while
the total amount of time required to gather 24 seconds of
rated material could vary from episode to episode, no case
could be coded faster than 40 seconds. Furthermore, a 10
minute maximum time limit was established as the cutoff in
coding any conversational episode. A case was considered
complete once the rater had charted the pronoun use, des-
criptive data, topic, and made the appropriate entries on

his/her scoresheet.

Research Design

 

This study used a 3x2x2 factorial design to determine
the degree to which 'self-focus' and 'other-focus' were

related to the sex of the speaker, sex of the listener,

54

and age of the speaker. The factor age had three levels,
while sex of listener and sex of speaker had two levels,
male and female.

The dependent variable 'other-focus' represented a
summation of all third-person pronoun references, with the
more familiar second-person pronouns (you, your, your-
selves) and all nominative, objective, and possessive case
plural, first person-pronoun references (we, us, ourselves).
'Self-focus' was defined by adding all instances of first-
person pronoun use, nominative, objective or possessive
case (I, me, mine, my, myself). In total, 480 conversa-
tions were recorded with each sex-of-speaker by age-of-
speaker by sex-of-listener cell containing 40 independent
and randomly selected episodes. The following table graph-

ically depicts the research design:

Sex of Listener

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MALE FEMALE,
I
18A3930 n = 40 n = 40
Age _ _.
MALE 31 - 50 n ‘ 40 n ' 40
Age _ _
Sex of 51 _ + n - 40 n - 40
Speaker
18A3e30 n = 40 n = 40
Age _ _
FEMALE 31 - 50 n ‘ 40 n ‘ 4°
51A3e+ n - 4o 3 n = 40
i

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.6: Design of Study.

55

In addition to the analysis of the main hypotheses,
two collateral investigations were done. Of interest in
these studies was a comparison of the topic coded with the
sex of the dyad and the sex of the speaker and a comparison
of the age of the speaker and sex of the dyad with the
orientation of the topic.

Subsequent to the collection of all the data, 381 of
the 480 conversations rated were determined to have topics
coded. These tOpics were, in turn, written out (appendix
D) and along with coding instructions (appendix C) given to
three raters for their judgements as to the topic focus of
the statement as well as the orientation of the statement.
Topic could be categorized under one of ten headings: (1)
Sports, (2) Entertainment/Arts, (3) Business/Work, (4)
Tech/Mech, (5) Domestic Economy, (6) Human Factors, (7)
Social Issues/Current Events, (8) Acts of Nature/Man-made
Geography, (9) School, or (10) Indeterminate. Orientation
of the statement contained five possible responses: (1)
self focus, (2) other focus, (3) self and other focus, (4)
object focus, (5) indeterminate. Descriptions of the cate-
gories, written examples, and conventions for decision-
making were thoroughly outlined in a training session and
in copies of the coding instructions given to each rater.

In order to establish reliability for this second
group of raters, one page out of the 17 pages of statements

was arbitrarily selected on which to compute a percentage

56

of agreement between the three raters. Of the 24 judge-
ments made regarding the orientation of the statement,
there was 100% agreement among all three raters (24/24).
With regard to the topic of the statement, all three coders
were in agreement 95.6% of the time (22/23), with only one
case disputed by one coder (only 23 topics were considered,
rather than the expected 24, because an uncodable topic was
deleted). In establishing an overall reliability figure
for the remaining 357 statements, only those cases which
were agreed upon by two of the three raters were noted as

a correct judgement. Again, speaker orientation was more
reliably noted by the raters (341/357, 95.5%) than was
topic of statement, where two out of the three raters

agreed 91.3% (326

/357) of the time. Both figures indicate
more than sufficient agreement between the raters and the

items coded.

Research Hypotheses

 

Four research hypotheses were generated to empirically
test whether a significant difference (p (.05) in 'self/
other' orientation existed as a function of the sex of the
dyad and the sex and age of the speaker.

The null hypotheses may be stated as follows:

Null Hypothesis I: The frequency of 'self-focus'
will not vary as a function of the sex of the dyads.

 

Null Hypothesis II: The frequency of 'other-focus'
will not vary as a function of the sex of the dyads.

57

Null Hypothesis III: The frequency of 'self-focus'
will not differ as a function of the sex of the
speaker and the age of the speaker.

 

Null Hypothesis IV: The frequency of 'other-focus'
will not differ as a function of the sex of the
speaker and the age of the speaker.

 

Procedures for the Analysis of the Data

 

The major focus of this study was to determine if
'self-other' reference, measured by pronoun use, varied as
a function of the sex of the interactants and the sex and
age of the speaker. The data used for this analysis was
unobtrusively gathered by five raters coding conversations
in public locations.

To test the four hypotheses, a three-way, fixed-
effects analysis of variance was used, investigating the
two-way interaction of speaker age and speaker sex on the
dependent variable 'self-other' and the effect of sex of
speaker and sex of listener on 'self-other' orientation.
In addition to these hypothesized predictions, the main
effects of all three independent variables will be reported.

Conditions necessary for the use of analysis of vari-
ance include the following: a normal distribution of the
dependent variables, homogeneity of variance, and inde-
pendence. Given the large sample size, a normal distri-
bution was assumed by invoking the central limit theorem.
Independence was also assured because it was not possible

for one subject to affect the rating of another subject.

58

Equality of variance between the groups was felt to be
robust to any possible violation given the equal cell sizes
of the comparisons and the large sample sizes. The alpha
level for the hypothesis testing was set at .05.

Additional analyses were also done that provided des-
criptive data beyond the formal hypothesis testing. Re-
garding the collateral studies, the chi square test of in-
dependence was done to determine if observed cell frequen-
cies varied significantly from expected cell frequencies.
Of particular interest was the orientation of the statement
relative to the sex of the dyad and the speaker's age; and
the topic of the conversation relative to the sex of the

dyad and the speaker's sex.

Summary of Procedures

 

Five trained coders, over an 18 week period, unobtru-
sively rated the conversational interactions of 480 natur-
ally-occurring dyads. The sample was gathered from
throughout the state of New Hampshire, utilizing a total of
64 different locations. Ultimately, 12 distinct groups
were defined by the sex of the speaker, age of the speaker,
and sex of the listener, with 40 subjects in each group.

To assist the coders with their documentation, each person
was given three 4x6 inch sprial notebooks, a training
manual, and a subject by location scoresheet. Coders were
reSponsible for coding the relevant pronouns used during

24 seconds of conversation, sex and age of the interactants,

59

topic of the interaction, and additional descriptive data.
For the three coders collecting 120 conversations each, a
rate of once conversation per day was encouraged.

Aside from the initial training, the coder's ability
to accurately and consistently rate pronoun use was as-
sessed monthly. A total of 20 vignettes containing 247
pronouns were read to each coder by interested volunteers.
Percentages of correct responses were calculated for each
coder across the four separate administrations.

In addition to the consideration of the four main hy-
potheses, two collateral studies were performed involving
the orientation of the speaker and the topic of the conver-
sation coded. Trained raters judged 357 statements for
orientation and topic and these decisions were, in turn,
compared with the sex of the dyad, sex of the speaker, and
age of the speaker.

The design for this study was a 3x2x2 factorial one.
The three independent variables were: sex of the speaker,
sex of the listener, and age of the speaker, with three
levels for the age of the speaker, and two levels for the
factor of sex. The dependent variables were self-refer-
enced pronouns and pronouns suggesting 'other-focus.‘
Because of the multiple comparisons which were made, anal-
ysis of variance was used to analyze the data. Compliance
with the assumptions necessary for this statistical test
was assured given the large sample size, the independence

of the data collected and the homogeneity of the variance.

60

Additional analyses were done for the collateral studies.
These analyses involved the chi square test of independence
and detailing the relative frequencies and absolute fre-
quencies of topics used. The results of the data analysis

are reported in chapter IV.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

 

This chapter is divided into four sections for the
purpose of reporting the results of this investigation.
The first section presents some anecdotal comments made by
the raters regarding the process of data collection. The
second section reports the descriptive statistics followed
by the results of hypothesis testing and, finally, further

analyses of interest.

Anecdotal Comments

 

Given the relatively novel data collection process
used in this study, written comments were solicited from
each rater following the completion of his/her assignment.
Raters were asked to describe those aspects of the 18 week
project which he/she found particularly noteworthy. The
following paragraphs will briefly summarize those comments.

The observation made most emphatically by all coders
was how rare it was to observe older men (51 years and up)
speaking with women (any age). In fact, this phenomenon
contributed to a three week extension of the data collec-
tion period so that raters could fulfill this quota.
Furthermore, coders noted that it was not a matter of these
dyads not being observed in public, but rather, not observ-

ing older men Speaking to women in the places observed.

61

62

In a related vein, coders commented on, and the supply of
extra cases substantiated, the relative ease of coding 31-
50 year old men speaking to men, and 31-50 year old women
speaking to women. In general, coders found the middle age
categories easiest to fill (previously noted in the pilot
study), particularly when the sex of the speaker and the
sex of the listener were the same.

A11 raters expressed difficulty trying to approximate
a collection rate of one case per day, particularly in the
early weeks of the project when cold weather limited the
availability of varied locations. Correspondingly, the
warm months of May and June, when many quotas were still
open, accounted for 56% of the total data gathered.

Finally, raters mentioned the high level of background
noise which pervades much of the environment, a level which
they had not appreciated until attempting to code conver-

sations in public space.

Descriptive Statistics

 

A total of 480 conversations were gathered by five
trained coders, with two observers collecting 60 dialogues
each, and the other three collecting 120 apiece. The 480
conversations were collected from 64 different locations,
with the following settings listed as the ten most fre-

quently utilized:

63

Table 4.1

 

Ten Most Coded Locations

 

 

 

Location Absol. freq. Rel. freq:

1. Restaurants (83) (17.3)
2. Malls (32) (6.7)
3. Sidewalks (31) (6.5)
4. Taverns (27) (5.6)
5. Libraries (25) (5.2)
6. Education Office (23) (4.8)
7. Grocery Store (16) (3.3)
8. Parks (14) (2.9)
9. Town Meetings (13) (2.7)
10. Church (12) (2.5)
276 57.5%

While the design of this project specified quotas for
various categories, including: sex of speaker, sex of
listener, age of speaker, and location utilized, the age
of the listener was not subject to restriction. Cross-
tabulating the ages of the speaker by the ages of the lis-
tener, it is of interest to note that in all three cate-
gories of speaker age, the age of the listener is most
correlated with the age of the speaker. In other words,
individuals in the same age range are far more likely to

interact with one another than dissimilar age groups.

64

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.2
Age of Speaker by Age of Listener
Age of
18-30 31—50 51-+ Listener
115 36 9 160
18‘30 71.9% 22.5% 5.6% 33.3%
Age °f 31_50 35 109 16 160
Speaker 21.9% 68.1% 10.0% 33.3%
51_+ 18 51 91 160
11.3% 31.9% 56.9% 33.3%
168 196 116
35.0% 40.8% 24.2%

The following table

standard deviation for the five classes of pronouns coded.

specifies the range, mean, and

It is important to recall that the dependent measure,

'other-focus,‘

gories with an asterisk.

Table 4.3

 

Distribution of the Dependent Variables

 

resulted from a combination of those cate-

 

Pronoun

Self total:

*You total:
*We total:

It total:

 

2

Range per

 

4 seconds

 

*He/She total:

Other total:

0-13
0-12

0-10

Mean

 

Stand.
dev.

 

 

65

Results of Hypothesis Testing

 

A three-way, fixed effects analysis of variance was
used to determine the results of the hypothesis testing.
To facilitate reading, a restatement of the null hypotheses
in nonstatistical form will be presented along with the re-
sults of the analysis. Following the presentation of the
formal hypotheses, other analyses of interest will be re-
ported, including two collateral studies.

Null Hypothesis I: The frequency of 'self-focus' will
not vary as a function of the sex of the dyads.

 

The statistical test used to determine whether male-
male, male-female, female-male, or female-female dyads
differed in their rate of 'self-focus' was not statistic-
ally significant F (l, 468) = 3.48, p = .06. Table 4.4
reports the means and standard deviations of the four
dyads. The null hypothesis was not rejected. That is,
all four dyads have similar rates of 'self-focus.‘

Table 4.4

 

Cell Means and Standard Deviations for 'Self-focus'

by Sex of the Dyed

 

 

Male-male
i= 3.22
s.d. = 2.51

Male-female
SE: 2.91
s.d. = 2.44

 

Female-male
SE: 2.88
s.d. = 2.44

 

 

Female-female
i: 3.38
s.d. = 2.29

 

 

Null Hypothesis II:

66

The frequency of

'other-focus'

will not vary as a function of the sex of the dyads.

Male-male, male-female,

female-male,

female-female

dyads were not found to differ in their rates of 'other-

focus,‘ F (1, 468) =

2.15,

p:

.14.

In other words, the

null hypothesis was not rejected and one can assume that

the four dyads have similar rates of 'other-focus.‘

The

following table reports the means and standard deviations

of the four groups.

first,

Cell Means and Standard Deviations for

sex of listener second.

Sex of speaker is always listed

Table 4.5

 

'Other-focus'

by Sex of the Dyad

 

Male-male
i = 3.88
s.d. = 2.36

Male-female
Y = 4.07
s.d. = 2.77

 

Female-male
i = 3.82
s.d. = 2.55

 

 

L

Female-female
i = 4.73
s.d. = 2.94

 

 

Null Hypothesis III:

The frequency of

'self-focus'

will not differ as a function of the sex of the
speaker and age of the speaker.

The null hypothesis III was not rejected, F (2,

1.36, p = .26.

468)

Regardless of the speaker's sex and the

speaker's age, one can assume that no difference exists

for their rate of

'self-focus.‘

Table 4.6 illustrates the

relevant cell means and the standard deviations.

Cell Means and Standard Deviations for

Male

Femal

67

Table 4.6

 

'Self-focus'

by Sex and Age of Speaker

 

 

 

18-30 31-50 51-+
i = 3.76 Y = 3.01 Y = 2.43
n = 80 n = 80 n = 80
s.d. = 2.95 s.d. = 2.38 s.d. = 1.80
i = 3.32 Y = 3.25 i = 2.80
e n = 80 n = 80 n = 80
s.d. = 2.52 s.d. = 2.47 s.d. = 2.10

 

 

 

 

 

Null Hypothesis

IV: The frequency of 'other-focus'

 

will not differ
speaker and age

The statistical

focus' would vary in

not statistically significant F (2,

as a function of the sex of the
of the speaker.

test used to determine if 'other-

lieu of the speaker's sex and age was

468) 2.73, p .06.

The following table (4.7) illustrates the cell means and

standard deviations.

Cell Means

and Standard Deviations for

The null hypothesis was not rejected.

Table 4.7

 

'Other-focus'

by Sex and Age of Speaker

 

 

 

 

18-30 31-50 51-+
2 = 3.19 i = 4.04 i = 4.71
Male n = 80 n = 80 n = 80 240
s.d. = 2.38 s.d. = 2.65 s.d. = 2.47
i = 4.13 i = 4.43 g i = 4.27
Female n - 80 n = 80 3 n = 80 240
s.d. = 2.87 s.d. — 2.91 ; s.d. = 2.58

 

 

 

 

68

Further Analyses of Interest

 

The results of the hypothesized predictions were not
significant for the two-way interactions concerning 'self'
and 'other' focus. Prior to reviewing the results of the
collateral studies, the main effects from the analysis of
variance table will be reported.

For the dependent variable, 'self-focus,' no statis-
tically significant differences were found for the main
effects, sex of speaker F (l, 468) = .071, p = .79, or sex
of listener, F (1, 468) = .175, p = .67. However, for the
main effect, age of speaker, a significant result F (2,
468) = .06, p = .003 was found. A review of the three
group means indicates that the youngest age group was most
likely to be self-focused (Y = 3.54), with the middle-aged
group second (H = 3.13), and the oldest groug lease self-
focused (Y = 2.61).

For the dependent variable, 'other-focus,' there was
no statistically significant finding regarding the sex of
the speaker and rate of 'other-focus,’ F (1, 468) - 1.50,
p = .22. In other words, the average rate of 'other-focus'
for males (H = 3.98) was not statistically different from
the female speaker average (Y s 4.27). For the main ef-
fects, age of speaker and sex of listener, both were found
to be statistically significant in terms of 'other-focus.‘
Female listeners were found to elicit, or simply hear, more

instances of 'other-focus' F (1, 468) = 5.11, p = .02 than

69

men and the youngest age speakers were found to be signifi-
cantly less 'other-focused' (i = 3.66) than the middle-aged
group (i = 4.23) or the oldest group (E = 4.49), F (2, 468),

= 4.19, p = .01.

Collateral Studies

 

In order to further explicate the relationship between
the age of the speaker, sex of the speaker, and sex of the
listener on 'self-other' orientation, a second analysis was
undertaken using the orientation coded for the speaker.
While the orientation could be coded either: 1. self only,
2. other only, 3. self and other, 4. object, or 5. indeter-
minate, for purposes of this analysis, the indeterminate
rating was deleted, yielding a total of 368 scored state-
ments.

A chi square test of independence was used to inves-
tigate the relationship between the sex of the dyad and
the orientation coded. No significant differences were
found, chi square = 8.43; df = 9, p = .49. Investigating
the relationship between the sex of the speaker and age of
speaker on orientation coded, a significant chi square was
found when the speaker was a female, chi square = 20.05;
df = 6, p = .002. The following table illustrates the
expected frequency of the dependent variable in relation
to the obtained value. The four columns represent the
various orientations and the rows equal the three age

groupings of the female speakers.

70

Table 4.8

 

Expected by Obtained Frequencies, Orientation by Female

 

Speaker, Age of Speaker

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Self Other Self/Other Object
F (F
Fo = 20.0 17.0 o 14.0 I o = 29.0
3 18-30 F F . F
e = 15.6 17.0 e 8.6 , e = 38.6
f
Fo = 19.0 21.0 Po 5 Fo = 35.0
F 31-50 F F I
e = 15.6 17.0 e 8. E = 38.6
F F SF
0 = 8.0 13.0 o 7.0 i o = 52.0,
£51-+ F I F gF 5
e = 15.6 17.0 I 8.6 e = 38.6‘
n=47 n=51 n=26 n=116

Analyzing the relationship between the sex of the

80

80

80

240

speaker and the orientation coded, the overall chi square

was not significant (chi

ever,

4.65; df = 6, p = .19).

How-

it is of interest to note the differences between the

expected frequencies and obtained frequencies in the 'self-

other'

categories.

Table 4.9 summarizes those ratios.

Males were more likely to have their statements rated

'self-focus only,’ while women were above expectation in

the rate at which their statements were judged 'other

only.‘

71

Table 4.9

 

Expected by Obtained Frequencies, Orientation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sex of by Sex of Speaker
Speaker
Self Other Self/Other Object
Male Fo = 70.0 Fo = 42.0 Fo = 26.0 F = 56.0 194
Fe = 61.6 Fe = 49.0 Fe = 27.4 Fe = 55.8
F F F F
o = 47.0 o = 51.0 = 26.0 = 50.0
Female F_—:—_——_ F - F _ F - 174
e - 55.3 e — 43.9 — 24.5 e — 50.1
n=117 n=93 n=52 n=106 368

A significant relationship (chi square = 16.91; df
6, p = .009) was found for the age of the speaker and the
orientation coded. The following table illustrates the
frequency obtained in each cell relative to the frequency
expected. Again, reviewing only the distribution of self
and other categories, an exaggerated 'self-focus' is asso-
ciated with the youngest age, while 'other-focus' is more

related to the middle-age (31-50 years) group.

72

Table 4.10

 

Expected by Obtained Frequencies, Orientation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Age of by Age of Speaker
Speaker
Self Other Self/Other Ojbect
18_30 Fo = 49.0 25.0 Fo 23.0 28.0 125
Fe = 39.7 31.5 Fe 17.6 36.0
F F
o = 42.0 39.0 o 15.0 33.0
31-50 F F 129
e = 41.0 32.6 e 18.2 37.1
F _ F 3
51_+ o — 26.0 29.0 o 14.0 45.0 .114
Fe = 36.2 28.8 Fe 16.1 32.8j
n=117 n=93 n=52 n=106 368

In a final analysis, the topic of conversation was
examined with regard to the sex of the speaker and the sex
of the listener. Given the nine possible categories in
which a statement could be classified, cell frequencies
were often too small to allow for reliable interpretations
of overall statistical tests. Therefore, the following
presentation of the topic data will rely only on frequency
and percentage distributions.

The following table (4.11) lists those topics dis-

cussed relative to the sex of the speaker.

73

Table 4.11

 

Sex of Speaker by Topic

 

 

 

 

 

 

Males: Topic Absol. Freq. Rel. Freq.
1. Human Factors 42 25.9%
2. Business/Work 31 19.1%
3. Tech/Mech 18 11.1%
4. Entertainment/Arts 17 10.5%
5. School 12 7.4%
5. Social Events 12 7.4%
5. Sports 12 7.4%
6. Domestic Economy 10 6.2%
7. Natural Geography 8 4.9%

162 100%

Females: Topic Absol. Freq. Rel. Freq.
1. Human Factors 56 36.4%
2. Business/Work 26 16.9%
3. Entertainment/Arts 18 11.7%
4. Domestic Economy 16 10.4%
5. School 10 6.5%
6. Tech/Mech 8 5.2%
6. Social Events 8 5.2%
7. Natural Geography 7 4.5%
8. Sports 5 3.2%

154' 100%

 

The following table (4.12) lists each topic and the
corresponding percentage distribution between male and

female speakers.

74

Table 4.12

 

Topic Distribution by Male/Female Speakers

 

 

Topic Males Females
Sports (17) 70.6% 29.4%
Entertainment/Arts (35) 48.6% 51.4%
Business/Work (57) 54.4% 45.6%
Tech/Mech (26) 69.2% 30.8%
Domestic Economy (26) 38.5% 61.5%
Human Factors (98) 42.9% 57.1%
Social Events (20) 60.0% 40.0%
Natural Geography (15) 53.3% 46.7%
School (22) 45.5% 45.5%

 

Table 4.13 illustrates the percentage of topic occur-
rence relative to the sex of the dyad. Both absolute and

relative frequencies are given.

75

Table 4.13

 

Topic Frequencyby Same and Mixed Sex Dyads

 

 

Male-male

 

Male-female

 

 

Business/Work (19) 22.6% Human Factors (24) 30.8%
Human Factors (18) 21.4% Business/Work (12) 15.4%
Tech/Mech (15) 17.9% Entertainment/Arts (ll)l4.1%
Social Events (8) 9.5% School (9) 11.5%
Sports (7) 8.3% Domestic Economy (6) 7.7%
Entertainment/Arts (6) 7.1% Sports (5) 6.4%
Domestic Economy (4) 4.8% Natural Geography (4) 5.1%
Natural Geography (4) 4.8% Social Events (4) 5.1%
School (3) 3.6% Tech/Mech (3) 3.8%
n = 84 n = 78

Female-female

 

Female-male

 

 

 

Human Factors (29) 38.2% Human Factors (27) 34.6%
Business/Work (17) 22.4% Business/Work (9) 11.5%
Entertainment/Arts(l3)17.l% Domestic Economy (8) 10.3%
Domestic Economy (8) 10.5% Tech/Mech (7) 9.0%
Social Events (3) 3.9% Natural Geography (7) 9.0%
School (3) 3.9% School (7) 9.0%
Sports (2) 2.6% Entertainment/Arts (5) 6.4%
Tech/Mech (1) 1.3% Social Events (5) 6.4%
Natural Geography(0) Sports (3) 3.8%
n = 76 n = 78

 

76

Summary

Four hypotheses were tested. A three-way, fixed
effects analysis of variance found no statistically signi-
ficant (p (.05) differences between 'self-other' orienta-
tion given the sex of the dyad or the sex and age of the
speaker. Investigating the impact of the main effects, a
significant difference F (2, 468) = .06, p = .003 was found
for age of the speaker and rate of self-reference, with the
youngest group (18-30) most likely to be self-focused.
Significant differences were also found for the main ef-
fects of age of speaker and sex of listener on the depen-
dent variable 'other-focus,' with the youngest group least
'other-focused' and females more likely than males to
elicit, or simply hear, 'other-focused' comments.

In a pair of collateral studies undertaken to further
investigate the relationship between sex of dyad, sex of
speaker, and age of speaker on self-other differentiation,
no significant differences were found for the sex of the
dyad or the sex of the speaker on orientation coded.
Significance was found for the age of the speaker relative
to the orientation coded (chi square = 16.91; df = 6,

p = .009), with the youngest age category (18-30) showing
a greater than expected self-orientation.
Finally, tables were developed to show the percentage

distribution of coded tOpics relative to the sex of the

77

dyad, sex of the speaker, and percentage of topics dis-
cussed by males and females.
The conclusions presented in this chapter will be

further discussed in chapter V.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY

In this chapter, the study is summarized and conclu-
sions based on the data analysis are explored. A discus-
sion of the results as well as the limitations of the study
are included, along with suggestions for future research in
the area.

The purpose of this study was twofold: primarily, to
investigate the language behavior of same and mixed-sex
dyads relative to its focus on self and other, and second-
arily, to conduct this research using a nonreactive ap-
proach, unobtrusively sampling naturally-occurring dyads.
The impetus for the initial inquiry grew out of a substan-
tial source of theoretical and empirical opinion suggesting
sex differences in degree of self and other orientation.
More specifically, the theorists Bakan (1966), Gutman
(1965), and Parsons and Bales (1955) all coined terms to
represent these polarities, with the male self-focus termed
allocentric, agency, and instrumental, and the female other
orientation labelled autocentric, communion, and expres-
sive. These theoretical positions were further examined
by other researchers in empirical studies and also served
to inspire more general research in the area of social in-
teraction. The empirical work germane to this study was
reviewed across the following areas: 1. perception of the

environment, 2. game theory, 3. friendship formation, 4.

78

79

sex-differences in groups, and 5. sociolinguistic studies
of male-female differences in conversation. While the
findings of these studies were always limited to the sample
and methodology utilized, a number of them supported the
'self-other' dichotomy (Aries, 1976; Barron, 1971; Hirsch-
man, 1973; Hottes & Kahn, 1974; Strodtbeck & Mann, 1955;
Warshay, 1971).

The decision to investigate this specific area of sex-
differences has solid precedents in theoretical and empir-
ical research. Oppositely, the methodology utilized in
this study evolved from a conspicuous dearth of studies
using nonreactive procedures. This oversight is likely to
be especially problematic in this area of study given the
bias (status dynamics, nature of task, sex of the inter-
viewer) which frequently accompanies the more orthodox
methodologies. The current study sought to reexamine the
self-other controversy employing a nonreactive design.

Four hundred and eighty conversations were gathered
from throughout the state of New Hampshire, sampling from
64 different locations. The subjects were required to be
at least 18 years of age, English-speaking, and only inter-
acting with one other person. Of the five coders, three
were contracted to gather 120 episodes apiece, while the
remaining two collected 60 segments each. All coders were
meeting predefined quotas based on the sex of the dyad, age
and sex of the speaker, and locations sampled. Once a sub-

ject was coded, he/she could not be rated again.

80

Subsequent to a pilot study which field tested the
possibility of surrepitiously rating dialogues in public
and various formats of the instruments, the following model
was adopted. Using a 4x6 inch notebook, with each page
divided into a 5x3 matrix, raters coded independent groups
of pronouns used over three successive 8 second intervals,
the sex and age of the dyad, location, time of day, date,
topic, and identification number. Data collected beyond
the specified quotas was saved and submitted with the other
data.

Aside from the initial training session and rating of
practice dialogues, four additional reliability estimates
were gathered during the four months of the project. A
total of 20 vignettes were read to the coders by inter-
ested volunteers to determine how accurately the observers
could record spoken dialogues. The reliability estimates
for the observers ranged from 91.4% to 97.1%, with no rater
operating below 91% efficiency.

The design for this study was a 3x2x2 factorial one
with two dependent variables. The independent variables
were the sex of the speaker, sex of the listener, and age
of the speaker. The dependent variables were 'self-focus'
and 'other-focus,‘ determined by summing across various
pronoun groupings. Of particular interest to this study
were the two-way interactions between sex of speaker and

sex of listener and between sex of speaker and age of

81

speaker. In addition to the results of the formal hypo-
thesis testing, findings were presented for the main ef-

fects and for the results of two collateral studies.

Results

A three-way, fixed effects analysis of variance proce-
dure was used to determine if there was a sex of speaker-
sex of listener effect and sex of speaker-age of speaker
effects of 'self-other' orientation. In all four in-
stances, no significant differences were found for the two-
way interactions and the null hypotheses were not rejected.
Possible statistical significance was further investigated
using analysis of covariance. Specifically, the total num-
ber of pronouns in each class was held equal to determine if
significance was obscured by uneven frequencies of pro-
nouns. When 'I' and 'he' were the covariates, significant
sex of speaker, sex of listener interactions were found,
with female-female dyads achieving the highest mean rates.
This statistical technique, however, is procedurally sus-
pect given uncertainty about homogeneity of within group
regression.

Investigating the main effects, three significant
differences were found. The youngest age group (18-30) was
determined to vary significantly (p = .003) from the ohter
age groupings in terms of their high rate of 'self-focus.‘

This finding was reaffirmed when the youngest age group was

82

shown to be significantly (p = .01) less 'other-focused'
than the other age categories. Female listeners were also
found to elicit, or simply hear, more other-references than
male listeners (p = .02).

Results of the collateral studies were not significant
for the sex of the dyad and sex of the speaker relative to
the orientation coded. Again, significant differences were
found (p = .009) for the age of the speaker relative to the
orientation coded, with the youngest age group (18-30)
showing an exaggerated 'self-focus' while an above expecta-
tion total was achieved by the 31-50 year age group.

Results from the investigation of topic coded were
also summarized. Because of the large variety of potential
topic categories, cell sizes were frequently too small to
permit statistical analyses. Frequencies and notable re-
sults from this area will be presented in the discussion

section.

Discussion

 

None of the four hypotheses tested achieved statis-
tical significance. The first hypothesis, investigating
the relationship between the sex of the dyad and 'self-
focus,’ was ruled out at the .06 level. Further examina—
tion of the individual cell means suggested that same-sex
dyads (male-male, Y = 3.22; female-female, i = 3.38) were

most likely to use self-references in conversation. While

83

no one researcher in the previous review noted this type of
phenomenon, individual researchers developed his/her own
rationale as to why male dyads (Barron, 1971; Strodtbeck &
Mann, 1955) or all-female dyads (Aries, 1976; Caldwell &
Peplau, 1982; Kraft & Vraa, 1975) would tend to be more
'self-focused.‘

A second unanticipated finding, unanimously reported
by the raters, concerned the apparent lack of communication
between older men and women of any age, given the locations
sampled in this study. This finding appears consistent
with the work of Powers and Buttena (1976) who found that
older men had more social contacts than women, but these
contacts were extremely limited in their diversity, focus-
ing primarily on family, children, and friends.

Aside from the hypothesized predictions and the ra-
ters' anecdotal comments, the clearest and most consistent
finding of this research concerned the effect of age on
'self-other' focus. In general, the youngest age category
served to depress the rate of 'other-focus,’ while there
was a direct relationship between older age groupings and
'other-focus.‘ This finding is based on results of data
from the main effects and the collateral study. Observing
the main effect of age on 'self-focus,‘ significance was
found at p = .003 level, with 18-30 year olds most self-
referenced. Correspondingly, the rate of 'other-focus' was

significant for the age of speaker at p = .01 level, with

84

younger ages inversly related to the frequency of 'other-
focus.‘ Regarding the collateral study, data from the ef-
fect of age on orientation coded was significant at the p =
.009 level, with the youngest age category evidencing an
exaggerated 'self-focus.' In all three instances, the
youngest group was most likely to be 'self-focused,‘ while
the older age categories tended to be more 'other-focused.‘
While the empirical studies sighted in the previous review
found sex differences more predictive of 'self/other' focus
than age differences, the 'self-focus' of the youngest age
group is a well-documented tenet of developmental psycho-
logy (Blos, 1962; Erickson, 1950; Freud, A., 1966; Loevin-

ger, 1976).

Topic

Many researchers have studied same and mixed-sex con-
versations in an effort to determine how topic of the in-
teraction varied with the sex of the dyad (Carlson, Cook,
Stromberg, 1936; Haas & Sherman, 1982; Landis, 1926; Moore,
1922; Stoke & West, 1931; Watson, Breed, Posman, 1948).
Given the multiplicity of category headings used by the
various researchers, it is difficult to make comparisons
between the studies. This discussion will focus on the
findings of this research regarding topic coded and cite

previous researCh when meaningful.

85

This research found both male and female speakers most
likely to discuss 'human factors,‘ but females favored this
tOpic (36.4%) more than men (25.9%). Considering the sex
of the dyad and the topic coded, 'human factors' appeared
most frequently for female-female (38.2%), female-male
(34.6%), and male-female (30.8%). Only male-male dyads
spoke most often about 'business/work.' Females' substan-
tial attention to 'human factors' is consonant with ear-
lier studies which found women most likely to discuss
"personalities" (Carlson et al., 1936) or other people
(Stoke & West, 1931). Males' predominant interest in
'business/work' is also supported by earlier research
(Carlson et al., 1936; Landis, 1926; Moore, 1922). While
this study found male dyads more likely than female dyads
to discuss 'business/work,‘ the difference was negligible,
particularly in light of previous work which found large
differences (Landis, 1926; Moore, 1922). Although some of
this difference is certainly attributable to varying cate-
gory definitions, the considerable number of years separa-
ting these studies, and the concomitant changes in social
values requires careful evaluation.

When topics were analyzed for sex preference, three
large differences were found. Male speakers were signifi-
cantly more likely to discuss 'sports' (70.6%) than women
(29.4%) as well as 'technical/mechanical' subjects (male =

69.2% and females = 30.8%). Stoke and West (1931) found a

86

similar difference and reported: "Men still show greater
interest in things and sports..." (p. 126). Women (61.5%),
more than men (38.5%), were likely to discuss the topic
coded 'domestic economy,‘ primarily concerned with all as-
pects of home or apartment living. More extensive general-

izations of these findings would be misleading.

Limitations

 

The value of nonreactive procedures is largely in the
removal of intrusive experimental conditions which might
serve to bias or confound the treatment effect one is seek-
ing to measure. By minimizing these demand characteris-
tics, however, one often gives up a great deal of control
over specific subject characteristics which might be con-
tributing to the outcome measured. With regard to this
study, such a limitation was present. Raters had no know-
ledge of the type of relationship between the subjects they
coded, no information as to their marital status, socio-
economic status, or level of education. While certain of
these factors were more critical in this project than
others, the fact that they were not measured restricts the
conclusiveness of the findings. In conjunction with this
criticism, the results are also restricted to '1oud-
talkers.‘ On numerous occasions, attempts to code a conver-
sation failed because the interactants were not audible.
One can make a tenable case that the 'self-other' focus of
'loud-talkers'would systematically vary from those who

speak more quietly in public.

87

Serious limitations also exist with regard to the in-
terpretation of the dependent variables. Again, studies
conducted in the field, observing natural units of beha-
vior, are fraught with problems as to how such behavior is
to be interpreted. Without the opportunity to conduct
post-treatment interviews or have some degree of communica-
tion with the subjects, the interpretation of the behavior
relies entirely on the dependent variables. Summing across
first-person or third-person pronouns is certainly an im-
perfect measure of self-focus or other-focus (Cole, Fran-
cis, Dayley, 1983). Absent from such a measure is a second
judgement as to the greater 'tone' or meaning of the state-
ment. This project attempted to control for this misrepre-
sentation of the dependent variables by analyzing the ori-
entation of the statement. Interpretations of this data
must adhere strictly to what was actually measured and not
exaggerate the scope of the dependent variables.

A third limitation exists with the reliability esti-
mates for the raters. Ideally, the reliability vignettes
should have been read to all the coders at the same time,
by the same volunteer, under the same conditions. Because
the coders were geographically spread across the state of
New Hampshire, such uniformity in the reliability measures
was not possible. Because of these varying conditions,

the reliability estimates must be interpreted with caution.

88

Finally, the research procedures would have been im-
proved if more coders could have been hired to collect the
data. Given the restrictions on the eligible subjects, the
total of 120 episodes per rater was too severe. Reducing
the per rater data requirement by hiring more coders would

have also insured more representational data.

Recommendations for Further Research

 

The assumption that clear and identifiable gender
differences exist regarding the use of language remains a
topical and important area of investigation for social
scientists. As traditional sex roles and social values are
increasingly questioned, a firmer understanding of how sex
differences evolve and how they operate in society would
serve to add coherence to the entire debate. As Carol Gil-
ligan (1982) has written, this new understanding might im-
ply a thorough reevaluation of the value judgements impli-

cit in traditional developmental psychology research.
Towards this goal, it is important that research meth-
odologies be expanded. Investigators in the area of sex
differences are not hesitant to insist on the need for
studies which emphasize naturally-occurring human behavior

(Aries, 1976; Carlson, 1970; Deaux, 1978; Forgas, 1976;

Haas & Sherman, 1982). However, as Webb and his colleagues

(1981) have stated, social science research continues to be
dominated by the more orthodox methodologies of question-

naires and interviews. Consequently, the power of research

findings in this area remains diluted and inconclusive.

89

Recommendations and suggestions for further research
include reconsideration of the current study, but correc-
tion of the shortcomings discussed in the previous section.
Specifically, it would be important to preserve the nonre-
active design and the use of natural units of behavior, but
to clarify the dependent variables and increase the preci-
sion of the measurement. Other-focus, as measured by pro-
noun use, could be expanded to include references to rela-
tives (aunt, uncle, grandparents), proper names, and more
nonspecific designations like friend, neighbor, family.
Self-focus and other-focus could also be more precisely
specified by having coders rate pronouns and content of
conversation. Davidson and Duberman (1982) have specified
three levels of interactional patterns which they feel
characterize most conversations:

Topical: Conversations are on an external
level. Discussions center on such topics
as politics, current events, work or movies
which are external to the individuals and
the dyadic relationship.
Relational: Conversations are on an inter-
actional level. Discussions center on ex-
changes between the two people in terms of
the friendship.
Personal: Conversations are on an internal
level. Discussion centers on the feelings
and thoughts about oneself and one's private
life. (1982, p. 813)
The system might also incorporate some of the conventions
used by Bales (1955), Gibbs (1978) or Weiss and Lowenthal

(1973) to characterize the interactions. Such a system,

if developed, would have to be specific enough to identify

90

the behavior in question, but not so cumbersome as to be
unwieldly in the field.

The research of the social linguists also indicates
directions for further inquiry. Just as Langer (1970)
studied conversations of men and women working at the phone
company, self-other distinctions could also be investigated
in specific settings. Of particular interest might be an
examination of language behavior of men and women in typic-
ally male or female dominated environments (military or
athletics). This situation-specific focus could be further
refined, as was done in the study of ticket-buying behavior
(Brouwer, Gerritsen, & DeHaan, 1979) to see if sex differ-
ences vary across common, everyday interactions. Addition-
ally, it would be useful if experiments could be designed
using naturally-occurring dyads to determine if women use
language characterized by more emotion and affect (Gleser,
Gottschalk, & Watkins, 1959; Haas, 1979) or to clarify the
language behavior of mixed-sex groups. Aries (1976) and
Holohan (1979) both feel that mixed-sex interactions are
more likely to produce a decreased emphasis on male lan-
guage patterns, while others (Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch,
1972; Landis, 1922) found the opposite to be true. Final-
ly, stricter control of the age categories could be a-
chieved by increasing the range of upper limit and de-
creasing the range of the lower comparison. In light of

this study's finding that older men tend to be less likely

91

to talk with women, this emphasis on more discrete age
categories is warranted.

The language behavior of men and women is, verly like-
ly, related to a number of complex factors. By expanding
and diversifying the methodologies used to account for this
phenomenon, it is increasingly probable that language use
and the sex differences which accompany it will be accu-

rately understood.

APPENDICES

 

APPENDIX A

'Instrument

 

Training Procedures

 

Practice Dialogues

 

92

Coding Instrument

 

8 second intervals I II III

 

Self: I, Me, My,
Mine, Myself

 

Other: He, His, Him
Himself, She
Her, Hers,
Herself, They,
Their, Theirs,
Themselves,
Them

 

Selves: We, Our, Ours,
Us, Ourselves

 

Neuter: It, Its,

 

 

 

 

 

Itself
Dyad: M/M, F/F, M/F, F/M
Age: 18-30, 31-50, 51-+
Date: Month/Day/Year
Time: (2400 hours)
Location:
Topic: "He/She talked about..."

I.D. number:

93

Approaching the Setting

 

1. Since coding should be done at as many different set-
tings as possible, one should carry the code book at all
times. The books will be given to each coder upon the com-
pletion of training.

2. Upon entering a setting that has the potential to yeild
data, the coder is advised to position him/herself in such a
fashion as to maximize the likelihood of coding dyads, while.
simultaneously remaining unobtrusive. Frequently, the use
of a newspaper or book serves as sufficient cover for the
coder. During training, this issue will be covered in more
detail.

3. While flipping a coin can certainly compromise one's
anonimity, it is important that the person to be coded is
chosen as arbitrarily as possible. A simple solution to
this problem might be to eliminate the 'flip' and to dis-
cretely withdraw a coin from one's pocket. Depending on
the side up (H/T), the observer can choose which person to
chart. Furthermore, if one is positioned such that more '
than one dyad is codable, a second 'flip' will dictate
which of the dyads should be rated.

4. Since all of the interactions must be timed precisely,
it is important that the coder have a clear view of his/
her watch. Depending on one's preference, it may be easier
to wear the watch on the wrist not involved in the marking.
The coding will require the use of a watch with a second
hand. '

5. While it is important that the pronoun categories be
noted immediately, the remaining sections can be filled in
at a more convenient time, especially if the particular mo-
ment is not suited to more extensive writing.

6. Although coding across a broad range of settings is
encouraged, one should keep in mind that those areas which
have a high degree of background noise, fast moving traf-
fic, or those that provide little anonimity for the observ-
er will be more difficult in which to listen.

7. Aside from the code book, it is recommended that the
coder, at all times, carry a pencil, coin, and watch with
a second hand. The pencil is preferable to a pen given a
certain amount of erasing which will be routine.

94

Coding

The following comments are designed to assist the
coder by clarifying the task of data collection. Prior to
discussing each category to be marked, it will be useful to
provide a general overview of the assignment.

Essentially, each coder is requested to code the fre-
quency of certain utterances, sex and age of speaker and
listener, and a few other observable facts. The total
amount of timed data gathered from any dyad will be 24 sec-
onds, divided into three 8 second intervals, Given the im-
portance of gathering data from a variety of different set-
tings, coders are encouraged to carry their coding equip-
ment with him/her at all times. While the ideal rate of
data collection is one conversation per day, for a consecu-
tive 120 days, this rate is only offered as a pace to be
approximated. At three week intervals, coders will use
stamped, preaddressed envelopes to return his/her data.
Periodically during the duration of the project, consulta-
tions will take place and an additional reliability check
will be done.

Categories

 

1. Sex of dyad; there are four possible responses to this
category, a) Male-male (MM), b) Male-female (MF), c) Female-
female (FF), and d) Female-male (FM). Female-male is dis-
tinguished from male-female in that FM assumes that the fe-
male is the speaker, while MF implies that the male is the
speaker. As in all instances, 'speaker' will be determined
by the toss of a coin. The sex of dyad will, therefore, be
noted in one of the following ways: MM, MF, FF, FM. The sex
of the speaker is always listed first.

 

2. Date; the date should reflect the time the interaction
was recorded. Only numbers should be used, listing month,
day, and year. For example, April 1, 1983 would appear:
4/1/1983.

3. Time of day; to the nearest 5 minutes, and using the
2400 hour clock as the standard of measure, note the time
when the conversation occurred. For example, 1:00 p.m.
would be 1300; 9:00 a.m. would be 0900, and 4:30 p.m. would
be 1630.

 

4. 5gp; there are three possible responses to this cate-
gory, 18-30, 31-50, and 51-+. In each instance, the coder
should record the estimated age of the speaker first and
the approximate age of the listener second. If either of
the interactants is felt to be under the age of 18, the
episode should be disregarded.

95

5. Location; the area where each conversation was record-
ed should be noted. Primarily, location should emphasize
the physical setting where the conversation took place, i.
e., bar, hotel lobby, restaurant. However, in those situa-
tions where a physical setting is hosting a function not
directly related to the setting (a gymnasium serving as the
meeting place for a social work conference), both the phy-
sical setting and the function should be noted. Secondar-
ily, it is not necessary to use the proper name of the set-
ting, a generic designation will be sufficient. Therefore,
if the conversation was recorded at Jake's Restaurant, res-
taurant will be an appropriate label.

6. Topic; after 24 seconds of conversation has been re-
corded, the observer, in his/her own words, should summa-
rize the topic focused on by the coded interactant. The.
summary of each interaction should be limited to one sen-
tence and each sentence should begin with the following
stem: "He/She talked about...". It is best to try and
make these summaries a direct reflection of the material
discussed and impulses to editorialize or to be literary
should be avoided. A simple recording of the facts. While
infrequent, interactions may occur where there is no single
focus to the conversation and in these instances, one
should write "uncodable."

7. Pronouns; after one has determined the speaker to be
coded, the observer should attend to and mark each pronoun
used during the eight second interval. While it is not
necessary to note the exact pronoun used, each should be
accurately placed in the correct pronoun group. Contrac-
tions of the pronoun should be coded to reflect the pronoun
base (i.e., I'm code I; we've code we; they're code they).
Should one encounter the situation where the speaker is
quickly repeating one pronoun over and over as in, "you,
you, you," the coder should only note one pronoun.

8. Identification numbers; the last entry to be made by
each coder should be his/her identification number. These
will be assigned during training and should appear on every
slip of data submitted.

Special Considerations

 

1. Timing of the pronoun category; after each 8 second
interval, a minimum of 8 seconds must ensure prior to cod-
ing the second segment. While the total amount of time re-
quired to gather 24 seconds of coded material will vary
from episode to episode, no conversation could be coded
faster than 40 seconds (i.e., 8 seconds on 8 seconds off,

96

8 on, 8 off, 8 on). Midway through a coding, should the
speaker be interrupted or stop talking and another person
begin talking, that fragment of the interval is disregarded
and any prior 8 second segment is preserved. Coding of the
disrupted segment will begin again, from 0 seconds, when
the coded interactant takes the floor. The 8 second inter-
im should begin immediately after the coded interactant has
finished a coded exchange. Recall, it is perfectly possi-
ble that a coded 8 second interval will not show any pro-
nouns used. This should be marked with an asterik (*).

2. Location scorekeeping; in order to encourage a diver-
sity of locations utilized, a maximum of three different
episodes can be recorded from the same location per sex and
age grouping of the dyad. Therefore, for the grouping MM,
(18-30), no more than three conversations could be coded
from location 'restaurant.‘ To assist the coders with this
location scorekeeping, each rater will be provided with a
large chart which will easily identify the frequency of
locations used per age and sex of dyad.

 

3. Ineligible subjects; as closely as possible, coders
should be attuned to those interactions involving only two
people. When the speaker is addressing more than one per-
son, the situation should be disregarded. At no time
should the coder rate the conversation of someone person-
ally known to him/her. Never code the same person twice.
Do not code any interaction if either person is felt to be
less than 18 years old.

 

4. Anonimity; given the importance of coder anonimity
throughout this project, it is recommended that the rater
not discuss the work he/she is doing least potential loca-
tions be compromised. This warning also implies that the
vast majority of data coding will have to be done while not
in the company of a friend or other person.

 

5. Rate of coding; providing that one was able to secure
the necessary mix of age, sex, and location for each inter-
action coded, one would only need to gather one conversa-
tion per day to meet the quota of 120 interactions. How-
ever, given the probability that some groupings will be
more difficult to secure than others, the coder is advised
to record conversations as often as possible and in as many
different locations as possible.

 

97

Practice Dialogpes

 

Spk 1: Have you seen Peter?

Spk 2: No i haven't and I'm worried. I know hp wasn't
feeling well since hp lost his job with Data General. 1
hope hp hasn't done something rash. (code)

Spk 1: What do you mean by that?

Spk 2: I'm not sure, but the last few weeks he just hasn't
seemed to be himself. (no code--no 8 second interim)

Spk 1: You're not implying something like, well, you know,
that he could have hurt himself. He wouldn't do anything
like that. What do you think?

Spk 2: i don't know, but remember whe hp lost his job with
that trucking company--hp went on a four day bender, wreck-
ed his car, and disappeared for three days. (code)

Spk 1: Now I'm frightened. Should we call Mary and ask
her? Seems like they're always together and I'm sure she'd
have some idea or know who to contact.

Spk 2: Good idea, but they're no longer seeing each other,
which is another reason that I'm doubly concerned. Let's
call his cousin, John. (code)

Topic: He talked about his concern for Peter, who is miss-
ing.

 

Spk 1: So what do you want to do tonight?

Spk 2: I'd love to go over to Streator and listen to that
new band, maybe meet some women. Seems like pp haven't
been there for ages. (code)

Spk 1: And you know why we haven't been over there for
ages, because every time we go over there, you get into a
fight or somehow end up getting us thrown out of the bar.

Spk 2: Only twice, and besides, each time a fight occurred
that big goon from LaSalle was the one who started things
going. Seems like that guy gets away with murder. Never
remember a time when the bouncer asked that jerk to leave.
(code *)

98

Spk 1: Cool it, Mr. Innocent! Seems that I remember a
time or two when that guy wasn't even there and we were
still being ushered towards the door. Let's face it, you
drink too much!

Spk 2: What!
Spk 1: You heard me!
Spk 2: You're crazy!

Spk l: O.K., I'm crazy, so what do you want to do this
evening?

Spk 2: Let's go over to Andy's and see if his cousin is
still visiting. I think she's in love with hp and wants to
get to know mp better. (code)

Topic: He talked about what he wanted to do for the eve-
ning, primarily, meet women.

 

Spk l: I don't know what's gonna happen with this economy.

Spk 2: Seems to me that things are about to turn around
and... (no code--not enough seconds)

Spk 1: You're kidding! With close to 11% unemployment,
factories shutting down left and right, auto and home sales
slumping, and you think it's about to turn around! 'Spose
you also think the Red Sox are about to win the pennant!

Spk 2: No, honestly. The GNP is up, trade deficits are
starting to equal out, and inflation is down to a minimum
4% a year. If interest rates continue to fall, seems that
things will be normal by the first of the year. (code *)

Spk 1: I wish I shared your optimism, but living in De-
troit it's difficult to be optimistic about much. Just
last week, the mayor of Detroit, Coleman Young, declared a
national economic disaster in Michigan.

Spk 2: It's not fair though to generalize from Michigan to
the rest of the nation. {p2, yourself, know that MI is by
far the worst off of all the states and hardly representa-
tive of what's going on in, say Arizona. (code first 8
seconds)

99

Spk 1: Correct. But while Michigan may be the most despe-
rate of all the states, you can't tell me that California's
1.7 billion dollar deficit makes it a picture of economic
health and vitality.

Spk 2: But California's problem is unrelated to the reces-
sion being experienced by the rest of the country. They
voted in that crazy proposition 2% and will live to regret
that folly. (code)

Topic: He talked about how he felt the economy was about
to get better.

 

Spk 1: And how is your sister?

Spk 2. Kate, oh Kate's not so good anymore. Ya know it
seems that when people get to be our age, the ey just start
to fall apart. (code)

Spk l: I know what you mean. My heart isn't so good, my
nerves are always jittery, my lumbago always seems to bo-
ther me when it rains.

Spk 2: But compared to me, you're in good health. I still
haven't felt good since hy husband died. I sometimes think
hy emotions bother me more thanm _y physical problems.

(code)

Spk 1: Well if we can only have a few more good years, I
guess that's the best we can hope for. You remember Fred
Goodwin, he just had a heart attack.

Spk 2: Oh, no, what a tragedy. How's his widow? (no code)
Spk 1: Edith's taking it pretty hard, but her kids are

there and I know that they'll be a big source of support
for her. We must be sure to stop over there soon.

Spk 2. dl' like that. I know that when Paddy died it made
me feel good to have our _friends stop over and visit. Just
seems that too many of us are leaving too soon.

Topic: She talked about:

 

100

Spk 1: Well, did you buy the truck?

Spk 2: Not yet. I swear, I'm the most wishy-washy person
I know. I wake up in the morning and think, I'm gonna do
Ip_and by noon I've changed again. (code)

Spk 1: Don't be so hard on yourself. It's not like it's
an easy decision. You're talking about spending quite a
chunk of change. '

Spk 2: Maybe you're right, but damn, IE doesn't seem like
IE should be this hard. I remember when I bought my first
truck. That was easy -- 5150.00 out the door. (code)

Spk 1: But today's trucks are a bit different than the

ones back then. Today, you're deciding between all kinds of
options, zillions of different ways to finance them, and
constantly worried that it will rust out before the first
year is up.

Spk 2: You're a good sport to mention those things. I'm
gonna head over to the GMC dealer after work and see if hp
won't take hy new offer. Wish hp luck.

Topic: He talked about:

 

Spk 1: But why do you just walk away when that happens?

Spk 2: I'm not sure. Seems that's been a problem with hp
for as long as I can remember. hy dad used to be the very
same way. (code)

Spk 1: So does that mean you have to act like him?

Spk 2: Of course not, but it's a habit I need to try and
break. (no code)

Spk 1: Well, I fail to see how walking out helps to break
the habit.

Spk 2: Listen -- I have a very difficult time dealing with
women. Obviously I'm not doing very well with pp; rela-
tionship and, furtHEEmore, I don't find this discussion to
be helpful. (code)

Spk l: Seems to be that's the same as walking away, you're
just not moving your feet. Are you afraid to talk about
this stuff with me? Do I threaten you?

101

Spk 2: Carol, you don't threaten me. If anything, I feel
more myself when we're together. It's just when things
start to heat up -- I feel closed in. (code)

 

Topic: He talked about:

 

Spk 1: The King Tut exhibit was just spectacular.

Spk 2: We never got to see it. I'd love to go to the city
soon. (no code--no 8 seconds)

Spk 1: There's so much to do there. The museums, the op-
eras, shops, the symphony, weird places to eat, and, if
nothing else, just watching all the bizarre people.

Spk 2: The last time pp went to NYC, pp saw Othello. What
a splendid time. If only John hadn't locked the keys in
the car. But IE was fun. (code)

Spk 1: Oh, I remember that time. And neither of you had a
spare set and you ended up staying in a hotel until you
could get some help.

Spk 2: Maybe that's the reason we haven't been back since.

Spk 1: Let's plan to take a day and go into the city just.
by ourselves. We could go in on the train, spend the en-
tire afternoon doing whatever we want, and be back by sup-
per.

Spk 2: Great idea! We can get this Sunday's paper and
look at all the things happening this month. We could even
send away for tickets if we saw something good. (code)

Spk 1: Let's plan to do it over Spring break. We'll have
lots of free time then, the weather will be warm, the sales
will be on, and we could even take a ferry ride.

Spk 2: I can't wait! But what will I do for money? Maybe
I' 11 have to break into my college money. I hate to do IE,
but it' s for a good cause. (code)

Topic: She talked about:

 

102

Spk 1: What courses are you taking?

Spk 2: A full load. History, Spanish, modern American
lit., and chemistry. Chemistry's a real bitch! The in-
structor just stands up at the board and starts writing
when the bell rings. (code *)

Spk 1: Is that Ms. Peterson?

Spk 2: That was her name. She's now Mrs. Thomas Laing.
Lady took quite a turn. (no code-—1ack of 8 seconds)

Spk 1: She's 'sposed to be a tyrant. I dropped the class
the first week. I couldn't get past the instructions for
lighting the bunson burner.

Spk 2: Thanks for the good news. So far we've had home-
work every night, along with the two labs a week. I'm
afraid I may not be able to hack it. (code)

 

Spk 1: Hang in there. If anyone can do it, it's you.
Remember Jerry Glanz? He had that same course and he pass-
ed it, and you're smarter than he is.

Spk 2: Maybe, but his dad's a chemist and I'm sure that
Jerry had lots of extra help that I can't count on. Be-
sides, Jerry wanted to be a chemist. (code)

Topic: She talked about:

 

Spk 1: Did you buy anything today?

Spk 2: Nothing much, just a few bargains from the leather

shop. That new mall is sure a nice addition to this area.

Wonder if the old mall will be able to survive the competi-
tion? (code *)

Spk l: I don't know if Newington will survive the competi-
tion, but my big fear is that Susan's schoolwork may not
survive it.

Spk 2: What do you mean?

Spk 1: Ever since it opened, she's been Spending all her
extra time over there and I'm worried.

Spk 2: Don't worry. It's just a passing thing. She'll
be her old self in no time. Are you going over to the
Miller's tomorrow night? (code)

103

Spk 1: Not that I know of .. what's the occasion?

Spk 2: Guess it's their 20th anniversary and their kids
are throwing a surprise party. (no code)

Spk 1: What a nice idea! I only wish our kids could re-
member one anniversary of our's. For that matter, I wish
Tom could remember our anniversary.

Spk 2: Jen, you're not complaining are you? You've got
three great k1ds, a thoughtful, if frequently forgetful,
husband, and me.

Topic: She talked about: (no code given the lack of a
consistent topic)

 

APPENDIX B

Reliability Dialogues

 

104

Reliability Dialogues
Spk l: I hate the New York Yankees.

Spk 2: 1 I hate 'em too. hey always win and their manager
never admits that the only reason that they don't lose is
because they've bought up all the decent players.

Spk 1: Oh, well. What are you gonna do for dinner? We've
got plenty of food over at the house and I know that the
rest of the family would love to see their long lost Uncle
Tony. Why don't ya come on over and see the family?

Spk 2: Thanks, but no thanks. I promisedm _y girlfriend
that I' d take her out to dinner and then to a show. Have
you seen that new movie with Dustin Hoffman?

Spk 1: You mean, "Tootsie." Yes, I did and I hated it.
Would've walked out but Jane was enjoying it. Sure you
won't reconsider dinner?

Spk 2: Can we make that meal another time? I' d love to
see the family and kids, and play your new Atar1 game. I
hear that one' 3 hard.

 

Spk 1: I cannot understand how anyone in his right mind
could support Reagan.

Spk 2: I agree. He never answers a question the same way
twice, and besides, every answer that he does concoct, I
disagree with.

Spk l: 'Spose it's possible that he won't run in 1984? As
for myself, I really can't imagine that he's got the physi-
cal stamina to make another presidential ratrace.

Spk 2: Except for hIm It won't be nearly the effort that
it will be for the democratic candidate. He's got most of
h1s reelection campaign in place and only needs to tell the
PACS to go.

 

Spk 1: It all seems 1:00 silly, here we are, half-way
through his first term in office and already people are
speculating about his chances in 1984. No sooner do we
elect them than we're talking about the next election.

Spk 2: It' almost as if the important event was the run
for the off1ce and not the period in office. For myself,
I' d just as soon see the term be six, not four.

 

105

Spk 1: Where are you gonna go for vacation?

Spk 2: We're gonna head up to Northern Maine and do some
camping and canoeing. I hear that the lakes up there are
'sposed to be clean enough to drink out of.

Spk 1: That's a beautiful area, especially around the
Presque Isle section. Be careful, though, you don't want
to be up there much before May, you'll be scrapping ice off
your windows.

Spk 2: Not to worry. Don't plan to be up there until af-
ter the first of June. By then the black flies should be
out in force and the small-mouthed bass should be biting
like crazy. (*)

Spk 1: Don't your folks live near there?
Spk 2: No.

Spk l: I thought you told me that your father used to hunt
and fish around there as a small boy.

Spk 2: He did, but that was when he used to vacation in
that area with his parents. They never lived there, but
would go up from the city for two weeks.

 

Spk 1: Without living there it's hard to judge.

Spk 2: Hard my ass! I see those kids go to school in the
middle of winter without gloves or hats. She's an unfit
parent and I think the police should be called.

Spk 1: So why don't you do it if you think she's being
neglectful. If you believe it's happening and don't do
anything about it, are you any better than she is?

Spk 2: You're right. I should and I will.

Spk 1: Hold on now. Do you really think that doing this
is most likely to help those kids out? Don't you want to
be careful that you don't do something that will make their
lives more miserable.

Spk 2: What could possibly make their lives more diffi-
cult. Shg sleeps with half the town, is usually popped by
noon, and never shows the slightest interest in anyone but
herself.

106

Spk 1: Suit yourself. But I still feel that notifying

the police is not the best solution in these cases. Very
likely the police will come in and reprimand her, threaten
her, and do nothing by way of seeing that she is capable of
doing a better job.

Spk 2: Well it hurts me too much to see it continue. I'm
gonna call right this minute and tell them all I know. I
think they should be taken away from her.

 

 

Spk 1: Were you able to get a flight?

Spk 2: That and more. We'll fly into upper state New York
and then they send a car down to pick us up and transport
gs to the resort.

Spk 1: That's terrific. You were really worried about a
connection from the airport to the lodge, weren't you?

Spk 2: Not me so much, but Lee was frantic that we'd have
to catch a crop-duster and make a water landing. What a
hysteric.

Spk l: I could just imagine her doing something like that.
She'd be popping Valiums from the minute the plane left the
ground.

Spk 2: Don't be foolish, the plane wouldn't leave the
ground with her, I'd be going by myself. Hmmm...it's not
a bad idea.

 

Spk 1: Did you see the UNH/Boston game?

Spk 2: Yah, I did. I couldn't believe how much the fans
were in the game. I can remember when Snively would be

half-full and quiet.

Spk 1: That made it really exciting. Usually when we go
to hockey games, I'm so cold that I don't pay any attention
to the game. Last night was different.

Spk 2: I thought the other team was really rough. Seemed
like they got away with a lot more physical play than UNH,
”especially that number four.

Spk 1: Oh, right! And he was so small. Reminded me of a
Kamakaze pilot the way he'd just lower his head and go into
the thick of it.

107

Spk 2: It'll be interesting to see if he's still playing
when they meet in the playoffs. I predict he'll either be
hospitalized or will have quit the game altogether.

 

Spk 1: How 'bout some cards this Saturday night, Bernie?

Spk 2: I wouldn't mind playin' with you guys, so long as
Tom won't be there. If Tom's gonna pIay, I'm out. He's
just no fun for me.

 

Spk l: C'mon Bernie. Be a sport. Isn't it about time
that you two made up and stopped acting like my grandchil-
dren. Even they talk to each other.

Spk 2: Eddie, it's not just because of that summer. Even
if we'd never travelled together -- I just don't like his
company. He's not a nice person.

Spk l: O.K., so he's not a nice person -- but try to see
things from his spot. He's been through a lot these past
few years. Play cards with us.

Spk 2: Hey, lots of us have been through hard times these
last few years. But that's no reason why he has to act
like an asshole. I'm sorry, Eddie, I can't play.

 

Spk 1: But I think you'd be great for the job.

Spk 2: I'd like to think so and I am cautiously optimis-
tic, but tHe field is so competitive and I'm just out of
college with little work experience.

Spk 1: Don't talk yourself out of it, Phil. I think you
have as good a shot as anyone. Actually, with me pushing
for you and talking with Mary Ann, you're probably on the
inside track.

Spk 2: And that frightens mg a little bit. I don't want
them to hire me just on your say-so. What if I do get the
job and can't handle I; and I get you in trouble.

 

Spk 1: Hold on a little. Don't get too far ahead of your-
self. First of all, they certainly won't hire you on my
say-so. Maybe, just maybe, I can be a help -- but little
more.

Spk 2: 'Spose you're right. I'm just so anxious about the
possibility -- doesn't seem to promote straight thinking.
I'll be glad when it's all over, one way or another.

108

Spk 1: Think you'll ever go back there for a vacation?

Spk 2: I'd like to, but I'm sure Paul won't be interested.
I think he lost his enthusiasm for the place when he saw
the hotel room. Vintage post-Tet offensive.

Spk 1: That's too bad, those islands have so much to offer.
Did you get over to the Eastern shore where things are real-
ly primitive?

Spk 2: Yes, we did. In fact, we met a couple of the locals
who gave us a great tour. Went to their home, ate lunch
with them, and went spear fishing With the oldest boy.

Spk 1: Wow, that sounds great! Are you sure Paul wouldn't
reconsider a trip there? How can he be so offended by a
lousy hotel room? Where's his sense of adventure?

Spk 2: That's just It. Vacations for him should not imply
'adventure.‘ §I§ idea of vacation 'adventure' is the risk

which comes with going into the deep end of the pool with-

out a rubber raft.

 

Spk 1: So what does it all mean?

Spk 2: Well, first off, means that if that exhaust pipe
continues to heat up, there's a good chance of a fire or
maybe an explosion.

Spk l: Explosion! You've got to be kidding! This car
isn't even one year old and you're telling me that it might
explode! I'm literally driving a bomb?

Spk 2: That's right, captain. Least ways that's my opi-
nion and ILyg seen plenty of these problems. But suit
yourself, if you want a second opinion, go out and get one.

Spk l: I don't think I'm interested in that. If you say
you've seen plenty of this stuff, you ought to know what
you're talking about. It's just...

Spk 2: It's just that you expected the car. to last more
than one year without worrying about an explosion. Sounds
like a reasonable expectation, but, remember, this is an
American car.

 

109

Spk 1: When does your boat-building class start?

Spk 2: Supposedly next Monday, but I don't think enough
people have signed up yet. I'd hate to see It cancelled
for want of a few people.

Spk 1: I'd hate to see it flop too, but you must admit
that Jerry hasn't really advertised it. Why doesn't he
buy some radio spots or put up some posters?

Spk 2: Remember, we' re talking about Jerry It' s gonna be
a major accomplishment if he doesn't forget to attend the
class himself. Why don't you sign up?

Spk 1: Me? You must be kidding? Remember the shoeboxes
we were all 'sposed to build in the eight grade? The first
shoe that went on my box crushed it. Structural defects in
the builder.

Spk 2. Don't be so hard on yourself. Besides, it' 11 be
fun. In fact, we could get you rbrother—in-law to join us.
Think he would?—

 

Spk 1: So did she ever call you back?

Spk 2: She did, but I' d almost wish she hadn't. She said
she felt_ our relationship was doomed from the start and
doesn't want to see me again.

Spk l: Ouch! That's gotta hurt. Did she tell you any-
thing specific. You know, like why she thought you two
were goin' down the drain?

Spk 2: She did, but I don't buy it. She claimed that our
interests were too dissimilar. Funny that we were compat-
ible for the previous three years.

Spk 1: That's interesting. So she didn't mention any
other guy -- or more specifically, her boss? I mean,
that's your suspicion, isn't it?

Spk 2: It was, but I'm not sure anymore. I tried to talk
with her— roommates, but they aren't speaking. I think
she's sworn them all to secrecy.

 

110

Spk 1: Have you heard from Rich?

Spk 2: I haven't, but I guess his wife heard last week. I
guess he's O.K. It's hard to believe that anyone could
still be living safely in Beirut.

 

 

Spk 1: Why do you 'spose he went? I mean, they had just
had a new baby, he had just finished his degree, and life
looked smooth for a while.

Spk 2: Except he didn't have a job. The American Univer-
sity in Beirut made him a great offer and apparently that
was more important than staying with his family or his own
safety.

Spk 1: I feel bad for Mary. Living by herself in that
tiny apartment, with a newborn and that lousy car. Seems
very selfish what Rich did.

Spk 2: I agree, but somehow they seem to survive these
separations. Their lifestyle certainly isn't mine, but
then they'd probably be bored to tears with 22E routine
and humdrum.

 

 

Spk 1: Well I don't blame her for not going out by herself
anymore, the streets aren't safe and those kids are a bunch
of savages.

Spk 2: And did you ever notice, they don't attack when
they're just by themselves, only when a whole gang is to-
gether and they know it's safe.

 

Spk 1: Like I said, savages, travelling in herds like ani-
mals, unconcerned with who they might hurt, or what might
happen to them.

Spk 2: 'Spose 33 should try to organize some of the resi-
dents in the house and try to help ourselves? I'm not sure
what 33 could do, but I'm damn tired of being afraid.

 

Spk 1: Great idea, but name me two other people besides
you and me who would attend. The whole building is petri-
fied from the recent mugging and I think everyone is too
afraid to leave their rooms for a meeting.

Spk 2: So isn't this a grand way to spend our 'golden
years,‘ cowering behind our own apartment doors. Maybe 33
should emigrate to Japan where older people are respected.

 

lll

Spk 1: What about you, Tom, what are you gonna do?

Spk 2: Gentlemen, as for myself, I have no intention of
remaining in the state of New Hampshire and trying to work
in mental health. The work itself is too depressing with-
out the added grief of minimal state aid.

Spk 1: But aren't you just coping out, leaving a place
that really needs substantial input to go to less troubled
areas? Where's your sense of mission?

Spk 2: Please, I' m a psychologist not a Catholic mission-
ary. Besides, maybe we all ought to abandon this state and
let it fall on its face so that peoples' attention will be
drawn to the lack of services.

Spk 1: Well and good for revealing the poverty of social
services, but in the meantime, what about the families and
children who must survive the burden of this proof?

Spk 2: I never said there was an easy solution. Costs
will have to be paid for the nickel and dime mentality of
New Hampshire' 3 mental health policies. We can only be
concerned with minimizing those costs.

 

Spk 1: Have you put your garden in yet?

Spk 2: We tried last weekend, but only got our flowers in.
It's just too wet for vegetables. Don' t think we '11 have
them this year.

Spk 1: You're smarter than we were. We put ours in,
vegetables and all, and there's no doubt in my mind that
the produce is a washout.

Spk 2: Well, I figured if the rain wouldn' t do it, the
woodchucks would. They zapped us the year before —and last
year.

Spk l: I thought you had trapped all those critters and
shipped them out to Adams Point. Exhiled for the duration.

Spk 2: I thought we had too, but I' m convinced the
returned_ in greater _force. §y_worse _fear is that they'll
attack, like the "Birds."

 

112

Spk 1: So how was the wedding last night?

Spk 2: Short, to the point and without a lot of sap. The
priest was a real young guy and seemed in control of events
and scheduling. (*)

Spk 1: Oh that's right, that's Father Bass, the new priest
from Cleveland. He's 'sposed to be a real good looker.

Spk 2: Maybe that's why Bill seemed a bit uptight at the
ceremony. Maybe he felt he was being upstaged by the Holy
Father.

Spk 1: That would certainly be in character for him. Per-
sonally, I can't imagine this marriage going the distance,
he's far too self-involved to sustain a relationship.

Spk 2: Yah, I certainly wouldn't bet against you. But you
know what is more amazing, Cheri says he wants kids now and
won't wait.

 

Spk 1: Did you read about that round the world sailboat
race?

Spk 2: Oh, that's the one where each sailor goes solo and
the trips take like 160 days. Can you imagine all that

time by yourself?

Spk l: I sure could. I think it would be spectacular.
Going to all those exotic ports, no phones, no alarm
clocks.

Spk 2: Yah, but what about the dangers -- 120 foot waves,
pitchpoling stern over bow, icebergs, whales, not to men-
tion getting lost. (*)

Spk 1: Your sense of adventure overwhelms me. What about
the beautiful sunrises, just you and the ship and the
ocean. Gives me goosebumps.

Spk 2:. Gives he motionsickness. Give he our little dinghy
on Lake Shadow anyday. Besides, I don't want to be by my-
self for 160 days.

 

Spk 1: Well, what did the contractor say?

Spk 2: We can to IE, but it's gonna cost an arm and a leg.
If 32 do the digging by ourselves, that will save about
$1,200 bucks.

 

 

113

Spk 1: But you can't do that! How will a pregnant lady
and a man with coronary heart disease dig out an olympic-
sized pool?

Spk 2: My sentiments exactly. We already told the con-
tractor to go ahead with the digging and to leave us some
of the landscaping work.

Spk 1: Well that's a good idea. In fact, you could even
get your neighbor, the unemployed gardener, to help out
with some of the sodding and stuff.

Spk 2: I mentioned the same thing to Bill, but as you
might expect, he wants to do it all by himself. The man is
a living machine.

 

Spk 1: So did you have your day in court?

Spk 2: Not _y day, but a good 15 minutes. She and her
attorney made quite a team. Took me to the cleaners. But
that's the end.

Spk 1: But that's not official, is it? I mean, you still
have other appeals you can make or other motions to file.
Right?

Spk 2: Wrong. That's IE. Signed, sealed, and screwed.
She gets the house all to herself and I get weekly visita-
tion and the car.

Spk 1: As if I need to tell you, you were robbed. So much
for blind justice. Have you talked with Marsha about any
of this?

Spk 2: To tell yo ou the truth, I don't give a rat's ass.
Our marriage is over, the house is gone, but I' m free.
V1ve la difference!

 

APPENDIX C

Training Manual for Collateral Studies

 

114

Coding Instructions

 

Orientation

 

For the following list of sentence fragments, you are
asked to make two judgements. Complete the first operation
before beginning number two.

h. In this task, you must determine if the speaker's
focus is: l. a self focus only, 2. other focus only, 3.
self and other focus, 4. object focus, 5. reference cannot
be determined. The following category definitions will as-
sist you in your task.

Self focus (1): concerned with something the speaker

 

has done (vacation, injury, work), thought (contemplated,
observed), possesses (object, personal quality), or experi-
enced and is of special significance to him/her because of
his/her personal involvement. Often related in a fashion
which highlights his/her perspective or role in the event.
If the fragment were to be extended, the pronouns: I, me,
my, myself, mine would be likely to occur explicitly, or
to be understood. This coding will be ruled out if there
is any reference to involvement with another person.
Examples: He talked about: his new job.
‘—____—_ a rifle he just bought.
belief that nuclear war was

certain.
getting ready for Christmas.

115

Other focus only (2): sentence fragment explicitly

 

states concern or interest or consideration of another per-
son (friend, aunt, Joe, child, baby, woman), or group of
people (friends, guests, men, players, teachers). An elab-
oration of this stem would be likely to include the follow-
ing pronouns: they, he, she, their, them, or proper names
or non-specific labels designating others. Two should not
be coded if it can be determined that the noun is repre-
senting some larger organization (i.e., Poles, Quakers,
Union men). This category will be ruled out if self-focus
occurs.
Examples: He talked about: the group refusing to partici-
hosafizr husband seemed to know
everything.
the children who never seem to
have a curfew.

Bob's new girlfriend.

Self and other (3): code three when it is clear that

 

‘the speaker is actively involved with another person/people
or reflecting on his/her relationship to/with another per-
son/people. An elaboration of the fragment might easily
include the following pronouns; I, me, mine, myself, my,
he, she, her, his, they, their, us, we, our, or first per-
son pronouns used in conjunction with words indicating
'other,’ (i.e., Joe, aunt, friend, sister, neighbor). If
two pronouns within a fragment are used, and if it is un-
clear if one of them is 'self' or 'other,‘ (context does-
not inform), if the pronoun is the same sex as the sex of

the speaker, code it as 'self' reference, otherwise, code

116

it 'other' (i.e., he talked about: her not ever seeing him
again. Code (3), assuming that the 'him' refers to the
speaker. If the 'him' was instead a 'her,‘ one would code

other only (2).).

 

Examples: She talked about: how hurt she felt by him.
how her parents dislike her.
the players on her team and

how they relate to her.

Object focus only (4): code (4) when the sentence

 

betrays no particular reference to 'self' (1) or 'others'
(2) or 'self and others' (3), but rather focuses on an in-
antimate object, concept, or nonhuman life form. An elab-
oration of this fragment would likely involve the use of
the impersonal pronouns (it, its, itself) or be conspicuous
for its absence of pronouns. When no pronouns are used in
the fragment, but the content of the sentence makes it very
probable that the speaker or another person is being re-
ferred to, do not code (4) (i.e., He talked about: getting
ready for vacation; presume that this 'talk' is not a lec-
ture detached from human involvement. Correct code would
be (1).).
Examples: He talked about: AIDS syndrome.

the dispersion of the Jews.

an agreement between big busi-

ness and labor.

Indeterminate (5): code (5) when one is unable, from

 

the context of the sentence or the pronoun usage, to deter-
mine if the focUs is about 'self,‘ 'other,' 'self and

other,‘ or 'object.‘ In these rare instances, it would be

117

possible for a person or other person to be involved with the
statement, or the statement could simply be an idea or pro-
nouncement of fact. Code (5) when one is unable to decide
between any of the other possible codings.
Examples: He talked about: the pain of back surgery.

death in the Southwest.

Americans' preoccupation with
'newness.‘

Topic

h. Reread the same statements and determine the gen-
eral topic of the sentence. Assign the appropriate number
to the designated space. If you are unable to identify an
overall focus of the sentence, code 10. Use the following
definitions as nominal guidelines in your task.
Sports (1): Refers to organized professional athletics, to
individual exercises, to discussions about how sports are
played, athletes in various sports, teams, sports' poli-
tics, sports' scandals. Any and all olympic sports would

qualify, as would cards, gambling, windsurfing, board
games, hiking, boating, and fishing.

 

Entertainment and Arts (2): Includes activities and events
on a large public and smaller scale, i.e., outdoor barbe-
cue to Boston Symphony. Aside from the higher forms of
art, the category includes: T.V., movies, music, opera,
theater, historical celebrations, ballet, museums, books,
authors, playwrights, dinner parties, drinking, fairs, car-
nivals, eating out a restaurant, hobbies, video games, pho-
tography exhibits. In general, refers to events or activi-
ties for personal or group pleasure without the requirement
of competition or gamemanship necessary for the sport (1)
category.

Business/Work (3): Topic should reflect some aspect of the
work-a-day environment, be it: money, working conditions,
nature of the work task, employment, training, career goal,
taxes, finances, hiring, products, production, management-
worker relations, work laws, school when the reference is
regarding becoming trained or knowledgeable for employment,

118

the economy. Topic is to be distinguished from domestic
concerns which might also be concerned with similar issues,
but from the vantage point of the home.

Tech/Mech (4): Refers to science, technology, Operation of
mechanical, technical equipment, maintenance of equipment,
repair of items, tools, chemical, electrical, engineering
concepts, video equipment, research, space technology,
mechanisms of transportation, medical technology, computers,
math concepts, the physical sciences, and related concepts.
The range of topics includes very sophisticated, state-of-
the-art electronics to the mechanics of small engine re-
pair.

 

Domestic Economy (5): Topic revolves around those state-
ments which concern descriptions of, tasks connected with,
or routines of home/apartment life. Is not coded for the
occupants of the home or apartment. Specifically, home re-
pair, home decoration, home purchase, yard work, food pur-
chase, domestic finances, laundry, furniture, home design,
household products, routines necessary for the establish-
ment and maintenance of home life. In some fashion, ex-
plicitly or implicitly, the main focus of the topic must
reflect a concern with home or apartment life.

 

Human Factors (6): In general, refers to those topics
which focus on human existence with self and others. In-
cludes the types of relationships which exist between peo-
ple, feelings, lifestyles, statements regarding human sex-
uality, religion, morality, personal problems, personal
health, life transitions, comments about other people, era-
tions of personality in general. Distinct from code (7).
this category should reflect a more personal level of
statement.

 

Social Issues/Current Events (7): Distinct from code (6),
these topics are discussed on a larger, less personal
scale. Specifically, war, abortion, the draft, nuclear
proliferation, state and local politics, crime, elections,
governmental affairs. Generally, the issues of public de-
bate or items covered on the evening news.

 

Acts of Nature/Man-made Environment (8): Refers to state-
ments about the weather, climate, physical geography, moun-
tains, lakes, rivers, desserts, seascapes, landscapes,
towns, malls, physical structures, bridges, roads, tunnels,
skyscrapers, interior/exterior non-domestic design, urban
geography. Includes references to natural disasters,
floods, volcanos, snowstorms, tidal waves.

 

119

School (9): Concerns statements to the effect: classwork,
extracurricular activities, school social life, comments
regarding teachers, classmates, grades, assignments,

school schedules, examinations, summer school, student
government, fraternities, sororities, dormitory life, and
school problems. Similar to number (5), this topic re—
quires that some aspect of 'school' be prominent in the
statement, superseding other considerations that might
occur in other categories.

 

Uncodable (10): When you are unable to determine where a
certain statement belongs, code (10).

 

APPENDIX D

Listing of Coded Statements

 

120

He talked about:

003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
011
013
014
015
016
018
019
021
022
121
122
123
124
125
126

217

how he learned to tend bar. 1 3

preparing for the end of the teaching term. 1 3
his future life plans. 1 6

nutritional aspects of food. 4 l0

his son's new interest in girls. 2 6

the livibility of cities in New Hampshire. 4 8
a computer program he was writing. 1 4

his band's performance in a bar. 3 3

the Arab-Israeli conflict. 4 7

his relationship with a woman. 3 6

his psychology exam and diversion tactics. I 9
his grade in a course. 1 9

his summer plans, school and travel. 1 ll
remodeling his bar. 1 10

the virtues of raising sheep in Vermont. 5 10
how to conduct a scientific experiment. 4 4

a dog a friend wanted him to buy. 3 10

buying parts in the right store. 4 4

buying non-toxic paint for a cage. 4 4
comparitive quality of tools. 4 4

the price of beer. 4 10

finishing work and going home. 1 3

his friend moving to New York. 2 6

clients applying for disability benefits. 2 10

121

He talked about:

‘128

129
130
131
133
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
264
265
266
267
268
270
271
272

273

274

275

missing the country in the city. 1 8

his price of tool sets. 1 4

how to close up the books at the end of the day. 4 3
checking the teller's figures. 2 3

the benefits of vitamin therapy. 4 7

his pride in losing weight. 1 6

her not feeling persecuted by his behavior. 3 6
a T.V. show he saw. 1 2

the interior of the hair salon. 4 8

the evening's activities and chores. l 5

slang terms for currency. 4 10

videotaping movies and the equipment. 4 4
driving to Portland, Maine in his Subaru. l 10
the cost and installation of tile. 4 4

the exam he will take. 1 9

avoiding Weirs Beach on motorcycle weekend. 4 2
T.V. program being rescheduled. 4 2

his past vocations. l 3

the use of steroids and their side-effects. 4 7
a family with an M.R. child. 5 6

a bike and its performance. 4 4

talking with a store owner to get a bike for his
son. 3 l

advising a woman on how to fill out a job application.
3 3

his trip itinerary. l 10

122

He talked about:

276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
She
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221

222

his daughter playing Little League.

an apartment he wanted to rent. 1 5

2

1

his procedure for testing for diabetes. 1 10

his lawn chairs and new ones to buy. 1 5

child's test results. 2 9
gambling in Florida. 5 2
how he didn't like the Red Sox. 1 1

working part-time at Zayre's. l 3

different ways to approach a building project.

the renovation of a cruise ship. 4 4
talked about:

the climate in the room. 4 8

the time for a patient to begin treatment.

a family's adjustments to ill child.

2

6

her school's readiness for testing. 1 9

having company for Easter. 5 2
a favorite author. 1 2
purchasing items on sale. 5 10
searching for bargains. l 10
her work schedule. 1 3

her son's problem with his retainer.

learning how to handle lots of money.

the rigors of graduate school. 5 9

2

6

4

10

sitting with another woman to hear better.

someone losing the same card twice.

2

10

2

3

6

6

4

4

She
223
225
226

227

123

talked about:

how items in vogue today were passe years ago. 4
her groceries not spoiling on an errand. l 5
how to locate books by one author. 4 2

the school program next door. 4 9

He talked about:

381
383
385
389
390
She
391
394
397
398
399

a friend's death. 2 6

a woman he was with over the weekend. 2 6
a friend, his drinking, lies, illness. 2 6
visiting friends and their plans 2 10

the wealth and history of the area. 4 8
talked about:

her smart baby. 2 6

a friend's mean boyfriend. 2 6

comedians she liked. 1 2

her anger at her family. 3 6

being cold and loving those hot climates. l 8

He talked about:

165
167
168
169
170
171
172
173

174

his son and his real estate holdings. 2 3

his employees and how well the store will do. 2 3
investing in a company. 5 3

his hometown and other man's hometown. 3 8

his unhappiness at the politics of baseball. 1 1
his son and other family members attending Brown.
his son moving to his home. 3 6

what she wanted for lunch. 2 10

his weight loss. 1 6

10

2

9

124

He talked about:

176 a photograph book as compared with his photos. 1 2
177 where she lived and his friendsthere. 3 8

178 going to a Clambake and all the food there. 4 2
179 locating charcoal fluid or using another's. 4 10
180 taking a shower and being refreshed. 1 6

She talked about:

181 buying unscented shampoo. l 10

182 losing her job. 1 3

183 which shorts he would like her to buy. 3 10

184 planning a meeting. 1 3

185 her father and his job. 1 3

186 how he was gonna apply grass seed. 2 5

188 her definition of maturity versus his. 3 6

189 her daughter and her swimming ability. 2 1

190 not being home before and seeing him. 3 6

191 a jogging suit her friend made for her. 3 6

192 a store that sold waterbeds. 4 10

193 clarifying the format of a report for typist. 3 3
194 locating a crisis residence for a woman. 3 6

195 a cake she made. 1 5

196 going to dinner and restaurant. 5 2

197 her anticipation of new baby. 1 6

198 her new work hours and why she liked them. 1 3
199 neglecting to write a letter on a card. 1 10

200 visiting another church in R.I.. 1 2

125

She talked about:

203 her daughter's picture. 2 6

205 not expecting to see him. 3 6

207 how man's son was sick before vacation. 2 6
208 his summer plans and his job. 2 10

He talked about:

242 losing his job. 1 3

245 going to a store so he could use their headsets. l 4
246 certain tools to do specific jobs. 4 4

247 how a cut-off man works. 2 1

248 a girl from England he dates. 3 6

249 how he planned to go to the furniture store. 1 5
251 the classes he teaches. 1 3

252 his ski injury and how it affected him. 1 6
253 his class he was afraid of failing. l 9

254 how to display new merchandise. 4 3

256 a new cup a restaurant would use. 4 3

257 his sunburn. l 6

258 asking a girl out and being rejected. 3 6

259 his accomplishments at the university. 1 9

261 how to locate some reserve books. 4 10

262 an operation his nephew had. 2 6

263 the polarization due to nuclear issues. 4 7
023 his legal problems, mother suing him. 3 6

024 players he coached on his basketball team. 3 l
025 his flight plans for the day. 1 10

026 the communication problems in the mall. 4 10

126

He talked about:

028
029
030
032
033
034
035
036
037
038
039
040
041
042
044
361
363
364
365
369
370
372
373
375

376

his ski trip to Colorado. 1 2

the equipment in the water plant. 4 4

living with his girlfriend. 3 6

a family he knew. 2 6

his plan for doing library research. 1 9

how a friend was adjusting to husband's death. 2 6
a woman he knew. 2 6

renovating a building. 4 4

his travel plans. 1 10

arriving a day early to meet his girlfriend. 3 6
living in N.Y.C.. 5 8

how people react to his dog. 3 6

the effect of climate on physical health. 4 8
his reasons for leaving teaching. 1 3

the daily procedures of his business. 1 3

his new girlfriend. 2 6

reclining chairs and how much he liked them. 1 5
about the circus, one man's job. 2 3

his fast, fancy car. 1 4

his wife, kids, troubles. 3 6

parts of speech, what a phrase is. 4 10

his grandmother's house. 2 5

the quality of daughter's education. 2 9

his sister and her horses. 2 6

the restaurant food. 4 2

127

He talked about:

378
379

380

143

144
145
146
147
148
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159

160

161
162
163

164

the sign lettering. 4 4
the difficulty of placing clients. 3 3

a man calling a family and complaining about their
son. 2 6

travelling to northern N.H. and fishing and eating.
4 2

the demands of his job and poor day. 1 3
foreclosing on his mother. 3 6

five-year olds playing recreational basketball. 2 1
his brother and brother's new job. 2 3

playing golf that afternoon. 1 1

buying an extra part. 1 4

closing a bank account. 1 3

her husband and son putting out a fire. 2 10
arranging transportation for students. 5 10

having the day off. 1 3

his appointments for the day. l 3

planting fruit trees. 1 10

his sister's plans for his daughter's wedding. 2 6
locating a book. 1 10

his wife's assertiveness in returning meat. 2 5

his disdain for school board policy and special
education. 1 10

a newspaper editorial. 4 7
the status of a lawsuit. 4 10
the laziness of the younger generation. 4 7

the employment situation for the young. 4 7

She
067
070
071
073

074

075
076
078
079
080
081
083
084
085
086
087
088
112
113
115
118
119
231
232

233

128

talked about:

frontage property around their home. 4 5
helping parents accept a child's handicap. 2 6
the quality of fast-food restaurants. 4 2

a math problem to be done. 4 9

different people she knew and feelings towards them.
3 6 '

a paper she had written. 1 10

needing a job. 1 3

a friend of hers. 2 6

her roommate and weekend plans with her. 3 6
how she was surviving the hot weather. 1 8
how people react to her dog. 3 6

rules for the 4-H fashion review. 4 3

her daugher's reaction to summer camp. 2 6
her work at a computer company. 1 3

some photos she had taken. 1 2

the personality of her Italian mother. 2 6
the appropriate syntax for sentences. 4 10
the process of hiring a new employee. 4 3
buying a bra. l 10

her daughter's job attitude. 2 3
researching family history. 5 6

how tired she felt. 1 6

taxes rising. 4 7

showing him her new office. 323

how to use crystals to keep food fresh. 4 5

She
234
235
236
237
238
240
308
309
310
311
312
313

314

315

316

317

318
319

320

321
323
324

325

129

talked about:

her lack of exercise and weight problem. 1 6
friends staying at a hotel. 2 10

how good the meal was. 5 2

buying a gift for her grandchildren. 3 6
poorly marked packages. 4 10

how he cut her off. 3 6

the location of a student on campus. 2 10

a particular concert. 4 2

her husband who had a fight with someone. 2 6
the increasing number of rapes on campus. 4 7
truck driving. 5 10

his wife, her baby. 2 6

the owner of laundromat and how good his place is.
2 10

the hospital bills from her baby's hospitalization.
5 5

her 7th grade history teacher. 2 9

talking to retired business people for their business
ideas. 2 3

a carnival she was going to that evening. 4 2

how items on a bill should be calculated and listed.
4 10

how she wouldn't get too warm playing catch with him.
3 l

defrosting the fridge. 4 5
abnormalities in blood cells. 4 10
a scary painting that depresses people. 4 2

the wonder of computers. 4 4

She

326 '

327
328
329
089
090
091
092
093
094
095
096
097
098
099
100
101
105
106
109
330
331
332
333
334
335

130

talked about:

the procedure to apply for the job. 4 3

a business she wants to start. 1 3

doing her laundry. 1 5

a woman who was a waitress and her boss. 2 6

her relationship with her mother. 3 6

her brother and his career problems. 2 3

where she had grown up in N.H.. l 8

the confidentiality of mental health records. 4 10
shceduling and procedures for agronomy students. 4 10
a girl she knew and her lifestyle. 2 6

the placement of a child in a school program. 2 9
how she would fix a broken xerox. l 4

the various stores in the market. 4 10

a child's recent psychological testing. 2 6

her work with high tech.. 1 3

the death and disappearance of a man. 2 7

the weather in Florida. 4 8

buying and repairing a house. 5 5

a person to fill a new position. 5 3

the state budget. 4 7

going to aerobics class. 1 1

how she used to boycott McDonald's before kids. 1 5
making an appointment. 1 10

stereo systems. 4 4

attending a similar workshop elsewhere. 1 10

buying a Coleman lantern. 1 4

She
336
337
338
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
462
463
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474

475

talked about:

131

job options after civil service exam. 1 3

about a friend who was a country bumpkin.

2 6

a friend of hers who used to be a thief. 2 6

a friend's poor health due to smoking.

the architecture in southern U.S.A..

a sick friend. 2 6

how nice canvas bags were. 4 10

the coach in the lobby. 4 10

different restaurants.

clothes she bought for her grandson.

4

2

a friend who now walks up to 4 miles.

her shopping itinerary. 1 5

the candy they had bought.

cooking vegetables.

5

5

3

her husband's business trip.

gardening. 5 10

her new brother-in-law.

2 6

10

2

a problem with a new product.

her new furniture.

1 5

a problem getting a part. 5 4

4

3

10

her relationship with her husband.

colors to choose for car. 5

the T.V. news. 4 7

her new volunteer work. 1 3

friends they had in common.

her ankle problems.

1

6

10

3

6

3

6

4

2

2

2

2

6

6

6

She
478
479
401
402
403
406
407
498
412
413
414
416
418
451
453
454
455
457
458
459
460
061
062
063
064

talked about:

her niece's husband. 2

132

6

the church service she attended. 4

her son's wife. 2 6

her work problems. 1 3

her pharmacist and the medication he gave her.

a friend from Florida who called.

report cards. 5 9

the lack of library materials.

her grandchildren and children.

vegetable, fruit stands. 4 1

children today. 4 7

how cheap her 'ex' was.

2 6

0

4 9

2

2

6

shops to visit and their locations.

an operation she had on her knees.

the party the night before.

5 2

her new boss and his personality.

her new relationships in town.

about her boyfriend. 2

6

her problems playing tennis.

her summer school plans. 1 9

what type of saw to use to cut material.

her past weekend. 1 10
a movie she saw. 4 2
her university career.

people she knew. 2 6

1 3

1

3 6

1

2

6

1

6

4

3

6

2

4

4

3

6

133

She talked about:

066 her work, how a meeting was conducted. 1 3
351 how to acces the computer. 4 4

353 restrictions on planting in cemetery. 4 8
354 Ronald Reagan's hairdresser. 2 3

355 buying a tea kettle. 3 5

356 all the food she buys and wastes. 1 5

357 how funny he would look if he bought those pants. 2 10
358 the fuel pump Bob was gonna replace in her car. 3 4
359 how to survive the harsh desert heat. 4 8
He talked about:

441 his increase in taxes. 1 3

442 his employees who were Brazilian. 2 3

443 a dog and getting his license. 4 10

445 the army and its changes. 4 7

446 Reaganism. 4 7

447 an old friend from Rhode Island. 2 6

448 his trip from PA.. 1 2

449 the movie. 4 2

450 how to shoot pool. 4 1

046 visiting his son at college 3 6

048 a mechanic he knew. 2 6

049 being the butt of a con man's joke. 3 6

050 the health services curriculum. 4 9

051 how to secure a mall space for a store. 4 3

052 his dental problems. 1 6

134

He talked about:

053
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
436
437
438
439
440
286
287
288
290
291

a tailor doing some work for him. 3 10

his relationship with a musician. 3 6

his feeling as to how a song should be sung. l 10
the need to wear protective gear. 4 10

his interest in lending musical equipment. 1 10
his need to raise money for fines. 1 10

theater actors of the past. 2 2

his decision to quit his job. 1 3

an argument he had with his teacher. 3 9

his college courses and graduation. l 9

her parents and how they misjudge him. 3 6

the party the night before. 5 2

his job and responsibilities. 1 3

an old knee injury. 1 6

son's baseball team. 2 1

his interest in economics. 1 10

the problems with her tennis game. 2 1

a song and a tight band. 4 2

the park and the birds. 4 2

different music groups. 4 2

budget constraints on art exhibits. 4 7

how much home fuel a friend of his consumes. 2 5
property taxes. 4 7

how he couldn't paint in the rain. 1 10

his friend, a baseball coach. 2 l

135

He talked about:

292 how his wife was gonna divorce him. 3 6

293 how he dropped the meat at the last cook—out. l 2
294 the tight job market. 4 3

295 his artificial leg and his special needs. 1 6

296 buying some shorts. 1 10

297 how the walls in his room were decorated. 1 5

298 some items in the store he wanted to buy. 1 10
She talked about:

301 problems she was having buying a gift for another. 3 6
302 telling a client she could go to camp. 3 3

303 the house she and her husband are buying. 3 5

304 how good doc's nurse was. 2 10

305 how she wanted it to get warm for tubing. 1 l

306 how hard it was to play by ear. 4 2

307 society's preoccupation with beauty and weight
control. 4 7

APPENDIX E

ANOVA Tables

 

136

Hmo.o

vma.o
gma.o

th.o
mom.o
mwo.o
th.o

moo.o
who.o
omb.o
mHo.o

m mo
mncmflm

Hho.m

mHo.N
oHo.N

bMH.o
mam.a
omv.m
th.H

coo.w
th.o
abo.o
Nmo.m

Hmm.m

mvn.m

mom.HH

omm.HH
omm.HH

omb.o
mom.h
moo.o~
mvm.h

ovm.vm
moc.a
mov.o
vbb.ha

mumsvm
:mmz

ahv

mow

Ha

mHNN NN

VHF-1N

mmm.HNmN

oom.omwm

Nam.OMH

th.mm
mbH.mm

msm.a

mNH.mH
moo.o~
hHh.mm

mhm.mw
moo.d
mov.o
mmo.Hh

mmumsvm
mo Sam

 

mDUOmlmqmm .MUZ¢Hm<> ho mHmMA€Z¢

sauce

Hmscwmmm

pmcflmamxm

mood qum mxom
mcofluomumucH mmzlm

mmmé qxwm

mmmd mxom

qum mxmm
mcowuomumucm wmzum

mmm<

axmm

mxwm
muommmm can:

COHDMHHM> mo wousom

137

moo.o

oom.o
mom.o

amh.o
owo.o
mvH.o
mmH.o

mao.o
vmo.o
Hmm.o
moo.o

m «o
mncmflm

me.N

mmH.H
mmH.H

hmm.o
mm>.N
NmH.N
HNO.H

mma.v
NHH.m
Nom.H
mmh.m

mom.h

vmm.m

hom.oa

mom.m
mom.m

mmo.a

mmH.mH
mmo.ma
hmm.HH

mmm.mm
www.mm
mom.oa
mqm.wm

mumsqm
com:

mbv

mmv

HH

Int-{NW NN

VHHN

mvm.amvm

mhm.mhmm

mnm.mha

bam.wa
ham.ma

ham.m

ham.mm
mmo.mH
www.mm

hab.mm
www.mm
Nom.oa
Ahm.voa

mmumsvm
mo Sam

 

mDoomlmmmBO .mUZ¢Hm<> m0 mHmNA¢Z¢

Hmuoe

Hmscfimwm

pmcflmamxm

mood qum mxmm
mcofluomumucH amzlm

mmm< qum

mmm< mxmm

qum mxwm
mcofluomumucH >m3n~

mmm<

qxwm

mxww
muommmm can:

£0H#M._...HM> MO 00H50m

BIBLIOGRAPHY

138

Bibliography

APA, Inc. Ethical principals in the conduct of research
with human participants. APA, Washington, DC, 1973.

Aries, E. Interaction patterns and themes of male, female,
and mixed groups. Small Group Behavior, 1976, 7(1),
7-18.

 

Bakan, D. The Duality of Human Existence. Chicago, IL,
Rand McNally, 1966.

 

Barron, N. Sex-typed languages: the production of gram-
matical cases. Acta Sociologica, 1971-72, 14-15,
24-42.

 

Bauman, M. Two features of "Women's Speech?" In B.L.
Dubois and I. Crouch (Eds.), The Sociology of the
ganguages of American Women. San Antonia, TX,
Trinity Univ., 1976.

 

 

Bennett, E. & Cohen, L. Men and Women: Personality pat-
terns and contrasts. Genetic Psychology Monographs,
1959, 59, 101-155.

 

Berger, J., Cohen, B., & Zelditch, M. Status characteris-
tics and social interaction. American Sociological
Review, 1972, 37, 241-255.

 

Bernard, J. The Sex Game. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-
Hall, 1972.

 

Block, J. Issues, problems and pitfalls in assessing sex
differences: A critical review of The Psychology of
Sex Differences. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1976, 22,
283-308.

 

 

 

Blos, P. On Adolescence. New York, The Free Press, 1962.

 

Bond, J. & Vinacke, E. Coalitions in mixed-sex triads.
Sociometry, 1969, 24, 61-75.

 

Booth, A. Sex and social participation. American Socio-
logical Review, 1972, 37, 183-192.

 

 

139

Brouwer, D., Gerritsen, M. & DeHaan, D. Speech differ-
ences between men and women: On the wrong track?
Language in Society, 1979-80, 8-9, 33-49.

 

Broverman, I., Vogel, S., Broverman, D., Clarkson, F., &
Rosenkrantz, P. Sex-role stereotypes: A current
appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 1972, 28(2),
59-78.

 

Brown, D. & Marks, P. Bakan's bi-polar constructs: agency
and communion. The Psychological Record, 1969, 19,
465-478. ‘

 

Caldwell & Peplau, Sex Differences in Same-Sex Friendships.

 

Candy, S. A comparative analysis of friendship functions in
six age groups of men and women. Dissertation Ab-
stracts International, 1977, 38 (ll-B), 5640-5641.

 

Carlson, J., Cook, 3., & Stromberg, E. Sex Differences in
Conversation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1936,
20, 727-735.

 

Carlson, R. Where is the person in personality research?
Psychological Bulletin, 1971, 75, 203-219.

Carlson, R. Sex differences in ego functioning: Explora—
tory studies of agency and communion. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical PsycholQflY. 1971, 37(2),
267-277.

 

 

Cherulnik, P. Sex differences in the expression of emo-
tions in a structured social encounter. Sex Roles,
1979, 5(4), 413-423.

 

Chodorow, N. Family Sturcture and Feminine Personality.
In Rosaldo and Lamphere (Eds.), Women Culture and
Societ , Palo Alto, CA, Stanford University Press,
1974.

 

Cole, M.C., Francis, A.H., & Dayley, L.J. Do Masculine
Pronouns Used Generically Lead To Thoughts of Men?
Sex Roles, 1983, 9, 737-750.

 

Cozby, P. Self-disclosure: A literature reivew. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 1973, 79(2), 73-91.

 

Crosby, F. & Nyquist, L. The female register: An empiri-
cal study of Lakoff's hypothesis. Language in
Society, 1977, 6, 313, 322.

 

140

Davidson & Duberman Friendship: Communication and Inter-
actional Patterns in Same-Sex Dyads. Sex Roles, 1982,
8, 809-822.

 

Deaux, K. Sex-related patterns of social interaction.
Invited paper, Midwest Psychological Association, 1978.

Dubois, B.L. & Brouch, I. The question of tag questions in
women's speech: They really don't use more of them,
do they? Language in Society, 1975, 4, 289-294.

 

Erickson, E. 'Childhood and Society, New York, W.W. Norton,
1950.

 

Exline, R. Exploration in the process of person perception:
Visual interaction in relation to competition of sex
and the need for affiliation. Journal of Personality,
1963, 31, 1-20.

Falbo, T. The effects of sex and "masculinity" on person
and space-related perception. Sex Roles, 1975, 1(3),
283-295.

 

Forgas, J. The perception of social episodes: Categorical
and dimensional representations in two different so-
cial milieus. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 1976, 34(2), 199-209.

Freud, A. The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense, New York,
International Universities Presses, Inc., 1966.

 

Freud, 8. Some psychological consequences of the anatomi-
cal differences between the sexes (1925). Collected
Papers, v.5, London: Hogarth Press, 1950, 186-197.

Gilligan, C.‘ In A Different Voice: Psychological Theory
and Women's Development. Cambridge, MA, Harvard
University Press, 1982.

 

Garai, J. & Scheinfeld, A. Sex differences in mental and
behavioral traits. Genetic Psychology Monographs,
1968, 171-299.

Gibbs, M., Auerback, D., & Fox, M. A comparison of male
and female same-sex friends-ips. International Jour-
nal of Women's Studies, 1978, 3(3), 261-272.

 

Gleser, G., Gottschalk, L., & Watkins, J. The relationship
of sex and intelligence to choice of words: A norma-
tive study of verbal behavior. Journal of Clinical
Psychology: 1959, 15, 182-191.

 

141

Guttman, D. Women and the conception of ego-strength.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1965, 11, 230-240.

 

Haas, A. Male and female spoken language differences:
stereotypes and evidence. Psychological Bulletin,
1979, 86(3), 616-626.

Haas, A., & Sherman, M.A. Conversational Topic as a Func-
tion of Role and Gender. Psychological Reports,
1982, 53, 453-454.

 

Hansson, R., Allen, M., & Jones, W. Sex differences in
conformity: instrumental or communal response. Sex
Roles, 1980, 6(2), 207-212.

Harding, S. Women and words in a Spanish village. In R.
Reiter (Ed.), Towards an Anthropology of Women. New
York, Monthly Review Press, 1975.

 

Hirschman, L. Female-male differences in conversational
interaction. Paper presented at Linguistic Society
of America, December, 1973.

Hirschman, L. Analysis of supportive and assertive beha-
vior in conversations. Paper presented at Linguistic
Society of America, July, 1974.

Hoffman, M. Sex differences in empathy and related beha-
viors. Psychological Bulletin, 1977, 84, 712-722.

 

Holahan, C. & Holahan, C. Sex-related differences in the
schematization of the behavioral environment. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1977, 3,
123-126.

 

Holahan, C. & Holahan, C. The relationship of psycholog-
ical masculinity and femininity and gender to person-
alization and social emphasis in environmental schem-
atization. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
letin, 1979, 5(2), 231-235.

Hottes, J. & Kahn, A. Sex differences in a mixed-motive
conflict situation. Journal of Personality, 1974,
42, 260-275.

 

Ickes, W., & Barnes, R. Boys and girls together - and
alienated: On enacting stereotyped sex roles in
mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology: 1978, 36(7), 669-683.

 

 

142

Ickes, W., Schermer, B., & Steeno, J. Sex roles in same
sex dyads.’ Social PSychology Quarterly, 1979, 42,
373-385.

 

Jesperson, O. Langusge:‘ Its Nature, Development'and ori-

gi . London: Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1922.

Jourard, S. The Transparent Self. New York, Van Nostrand
Press, 1971.

 

Kahn, A., Hottes, J., & Davies, W. Cooperation and optimal
responding in the prisoner's dilemma game: Effects of
sex and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 1971, 17, 267-279.

 

Klein, J. The family in traditional working-class England.
In M. Andersen (Ed.),‘Sociology of the Family, Balti-
more, MD, Penquin, 1971, 70-77.

Kohn, A. & Fiedler, F. Age and sex differences in the per-
ception of persons. Sociometry, 1961, 24, 157-164.

 

Komarovsky, M. Blue Collar Marriage. New York, Vintage
Books, 1967.

 

Kraft, L. & Vraa, C. Sex composition of groups and pattern
of self-disclosure by high-school females. Psychology
Reports, 1975, 37, 733-734.

 

Kramer, C. Folklinquistics. Psychology Today, 1974, 8,
82-85.

 

Lakoff, R. Language and a woman's place. Language in
Society, 1973, 2, 45-79.

 

Landis, C. National Differences in Conversations. Journal
'of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1926-27, 21, 354-
57.

 

Langer, E. The women and the Telephone Co: Part I. New
York Review of Books, March 12, 1970, 16-24.

 

Langer, E. The women and the Telephone Co: Part II. New
York Review of Books, March 26, 1970, 14-22.

 

Loevinger, J. & Wessler, R. Measuring Ego Development.
San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass, 1970.

 

Maccoby, E. (Ed.) The Develgpment of Sex Differences.
Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press, 1974.

 

 

143

Maccoby, E. & Jacklin, N. The Psychology Of Sex Differ-
ences. Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press, 1974.

 

McMillian, J., Clifton, A., McGrath, D., & Gale, W.
Women's language: Uncertainty of interpersonal sensi-
tivity and emotionality? Sex Roles, 1977, 3(6), 545-
559.

 

Mead, M. Sex and Temperment in Three Primitive Societies.
New York, Dell, 1935.

 

Meeker, B., & Weitzell-O'Neill, P. Sex roles and interper-
sonal behavior in task-oriented groups. American
Sociological Review, 1977, 42, 91-105.

 

Milton, G. Sex differences in problem solving as a func-
tion of role appropriateness of the problem content.
Psycholgical RepOrts, 1959, 5, 705-708.

 

Moore, H. Further Data Concerning Sex Differences. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology and Social Psychology, 1922-24,
17-18, 210-214.

 

Morgan, B. Intimacy of disclosure topics and sex differ-
ences in self-disclosure.‘ Sex Roles, 1976, 2(2),
161-166.

 

Newcombe, N. & Arnoff, D. Effects of speech style and sex
of speaker on person perception. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 1978, 37(8), 1293-1303.

Parsons, T. & Bales, R. Family, Socialization and Inter-
action Process. Glencoe, IL, Free Press, 1955.

 

 

Piliavin, J. & Martin, R. The effects of the sex composi-
tion of groups on style of social interaction. Sex
Roles, 1978, 4(2), 281-296.

Powers, L. & Buttena, J. Sex differences in intimate
friendships of old age.‘ Journal of Marriage and
Family, 1976, 11, 739-747.

 

Rapoport, A. & Chammah, A. Sex differences in factors con-
tributing to tbe level of cooperation in the pris-
oner's dilemma game. Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology, 1965, 2, 831-838.

 

 

Ridgeway, C. Conformity, group-oriented motivation and
status attainment in small groups. Social Psychology,
1978, 41, 175-188.

144

Sackett, G. Measurement in observational research. In G.
Sackett (Ed.), Observing Behavior V. II: Data Collec-
tion and Analysis Methods, Baltimore, University Park
Press, 1978, 25-43.

 

Sassen, G. Success Anxiety in Women: A Constructivist
Interpretation of Its Sources and Significance. Har-
vard Educational Review, 1980, 50, 13-25.

 

Schachtel, E. Metamorhposis, New York, Basic Books, 1959.

 

Siegler, D. & Siegler, R. Stereotypes of males' and fe-
males' speech. Psychological Reports, 1976, 39, 167-
170.

 

Sistrunk, F. & McDavid, J. Sex variables in conforming
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psycho-
logy, 1971, 17, 200-207.

Soskin, W. & John, V. The study of spontaneous talk. In
R. Barker (Ed.), The Stream of Behavior, New York,
Appleton-Crofts, 1963, 228-281.

Spence, J. & Helmreich, R.‘ Masculinity and Ihmininityi
Their Psychological Dimensions, Correlatesgand Ante:
cedents. Austin, TX, University of Texas Press, 1978.

Stoke, S. & West, E. Sex Differences in Conversational
Interests. Journal of Social Psychology, 1931, 2,
120-126.

 

Strodtbeck, F. & Mann, R. Sex role differentiations in
jury deliberations. Sociometry, 1965, 19(1), 3-11.

 

Stone, P., Dunphy, D., Smith, M., & Ogilvie, D. The
General Enquirer, A Computer Approach to COntent Anal-
ysis. Cambridge, MA, M.I.T. Press, 1966, 67-207.

Swacker, M. The sex of the speaker as a sociolinguistic
variable. In B. Thorne and N. Henley (Eds.), Language
and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Rowley, MA, New-
bury House, 1975.

 

Tajfel, H. Social and cultural factors in perception. In
G. Lindsey and E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of Social
Psychology (Second Edition, V. 3) Menlo Park, CA,
Addison-Wesley, 1969.

 

Terman, L. & Miles. C. Sex and Personality: Studies in
Masculinity and Femininity. New York and London:
McGraw Hill, 1936.

 

145

Thorne, B. & Henley, N. (Eds.) Language and Sex: Dif-
ference and Dominance. Rowley, MA, Newbury House,
1975.

 

 

Thune, E., Manderscheid, R., & Silbergeld, S. Status or
sex role as determinants of interaction patterns in
small, mixed-sex groups. Journal of Social Psycho-
logy, 1980, 112, 51-65.

 

Thune, E., Manderscheid, R., & Silbergeld, S. Personal
versus relationship orientation as a dimension of
sex-role differentiation. Psycholqgical Reports,
1980, 46, 455-465. -

 

Tiger, L. Men in Groups. New York, Random House, 1969.

 

Tyler, L. The Psychology of Human Differences. New York,
Appleton-Century, 1947.

 

Uesugi, T. & Vinacke, E. Strategy in a feminine game.
Sociometry, 1963, 26, 75-88.

 

Vinacke, E. Sex roles in a three-person game. Socio-
metgy, 1959, 22, 343-360.

Walker, L. Are women's groups different? Psychotherapy:
Theory, Research and Practice, 1981, 18(2), 240-244.

 

Warshay, D. Sex differences in language style. In Safi-
lios-Rothschild (Eds.), Toward a Sociologyggf Women,
Lexington, MA, Xerox College Publishing, 1972.

 

Warshay, D. The effects of marital status and age on sex
differences in language style. In W. McCormack & S.
Wurm (Eds.), Language and Society: Anthropological
Issues. New York: Mouton, 1979.

 

Watson, J, Breed, W., & Posman, H. A Study of Urban Con-
versations: Sample of 1001 Remarks Overheard in
Manhattan. The Journal of Social Psychology: 1948,
28, 121-133.

 

Watson, J. & Potter, R. An analytic unit for the study of
interaction. Human Relations, 1962, 15, 245-263.

 

Waxler, N. & Mishler, E. Experimental studies of families.
In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology. New York, Academic Press, 1970, 5,—
249-304. '

 

 

146

Webb, E., Campbell, D., Schwartz, R., & Sechrest, L.
Unobtrusive Measures: Non-Reactive Research in the
Social Sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.

 

 

Webb, E., Campbell, D., Schwartz, R., & Sechrest, L. Non-
Reactive Research in the Social Sciences. Boston,
Houghton-Mifflin, 1982.

 

Weiss, L. & Lowenthal, M. Perceptions and complexities of
friendship in four stages of the adult life cycle.
Paper presented at Blst APA Convention, 1973.

Wheeler, L. & Nezlek, J. Sex Differences in Social Parti-
cipation. Journal of Personality and Social Psycho-
logy, 1977, 35 (10), 742-754.

 

Wiley, H., Lewis, H., Hertzman, M., Machover, K., Meissner,
P. & Wapner, S. Personality Through Perceptions: An
Experimental and Clinical Study. New York, Harper &
Bors., 1954.

 

 

Wood, M. The influence of sex and knowledge of communica-
tion effectiveness on spontaneous speech. Word, 1966,
22, 112-137.