The effect of topic of discussion on gendered language in computer-mediated communication discussion

Journal of Language and Social Psychology

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 167-178

  Thomson, Rob ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Communication accommodation theory; Computer mediated communication; Gender; Social identity and deindividuation effect

Indexed keywords

EID: 33646420617     PISSN: 0261927X     EISSN: 15526526     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0261927X06286452     Document Type: Review

References (28)

1. Bargh, J., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). The automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait concept and stereotype activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230-244.
2. Bilous, F. R., & Krauss, R. M. (1988). Dominance and accommodation in the conversational behaviors of same- and mixed-gender dyads. Language and Communication, 8, 183-194.
3. Coupland, N., Coupland, J., Giles, H., & Henwood, K. (1988). Accommodating the elderly: Invoking and extending a theory. Language in Society, 17, 1-41.
4. Dijksterhuis, A., & Bargh, J. (2001). The perception-behavior expressway: Automatic effects of social perception on behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 1-40.
5. Fitzpatrick, M., Mulac, A., & Dindia, K. (1995). Gender-preferential language use in spouse and stranger interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 18-39.
6. Gallois, C., Giles, H., Jones, E., Cargile, A., & Ota, H. (1995). Accommodating intercultural encounters: Elaborations & extensions. In R. L. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory (pp. 115-147). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7. Gallois, C., Ogay, T., & Giles, H. (2005). Communication accommodation theory: A look back and a look ahead. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 121-148). London: Sage.
8. Giles, H., Mulac, A., Bradac, J. J., & Johnson, P. (1987). Speech accommodation theory: The first decade and beyond. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 10, pp. 13-48). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
9. Hajek, C., Abrams, J., & Murachver, T. (2005). An intergroup analysis of sexual and gender identity. In J. Harwood & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 43-64). Berlin & New York: Peter Lang.
10. Herring, S. (1993). Gender and democracy in computer-mediated communication. Electronic Journal of Communication, 3 [Online]. (Available via e-mail message addressed to Comserv@cios.org. Message: Send Herring V3N293)
11. Herring, S. (1994). Gender differences in computer-mediated communication: Bringing familiar baggage to the new frontier. Keynote talk at panel entitled "Making the net*work*: Is there a Z39.50 in gender communication?" at the annual convention of the American Library Association, Miami, Florida.
12. Jaffe, J. M., Lee, Y-E., Huang, L-N., & Oshagan, H. (1995). Gender, pseudonyms, and CMC: Masking identities and baring souls. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Retrieved from http://research.haifa.ac.il/%7Ejmjaffe/genderpseudocmc.html
13. Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, deindividuation and group decision making. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 283-301.
14. Limbrick, P. (1991). A study of male and female expletive use in single and mixed sex situations. Te Reo, 34, 71-89.
15. Matheson, K. (1991). Social cues in computer-mediated negotiations: Gender makes a difference. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 137-145.
16. Mulac, A., Wiemann, J. M., Widenmann, S. J., & Gibson, T. W. (1988). Male/female language differences and effects in same-sex and mixed-sex dyads: The gender-linked language effect. Communication Monographs, 55, 315-335.
17. Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and anti-normative behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 238-259.
18. Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2002). Behavior online: Does anonymous computer communication reduce gender inequality? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1073-1083.
19. Rodino, M. (1997). Breaking out of binaries: Reconceptualizing gender and its relationship to language in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3 [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue3/rodino.html
20. Savicki, V., Kelley, M., & Oesterreich, E. (1999). Judgments of gender in computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 185-194.
21. Savicki, V., Lingenfelter, D., & Kelley, M. (1996). Gender language style and group composition in Internet discussion groups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2 [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue3/savicki.html
22. Spears, R., Gordijn, E., Dijksterhuis, A., & Stapel, D. (2004). Reaction in action: Intergroup contrast in automatic behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 605-616.
23. Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1992). Social influence and the influence of the "social" in computer-mediated communication. In M. Lea (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication (pp. 30-64). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
24. Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon: The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 21, 427-459.
25. Spears, R., Lea, M., & Lee, S. (1990). Deindividuation and group polarisation in computer-mediated communication. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 121-134.
26. Thomson, R., & Murachver, T. (2001). Predicting gender from electronic discourse. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 193-208.
27. Thomson, R., Murachver, T., & Green, J. (2001). Where is the gender in gendered language? Psychological Science, 12, 171-175.
28. Witmer, D. F., & Katzman, S. L. (1997). On-line smiles: Does gender make a difference in the use of graphic accents? Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2 [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue4/witmer.html