Effects of gendered language on gender stereotyping in computer-mediated communication: The moderating role of depersonalization and gender-role orientation

Human Communication Research

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 515-535

  Lee, Eun Ju ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548724439     PISSN: 03603989     EISSN: 14682958     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00310.x     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Bem, S. L. (1981a). Bem Sex Role Inventory professional manual. Palo Alto, CA : Consulting Psychologists Press.
2. Bem, S. L. (1981b). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354 364.
3. Bem, S. L. Lenney, E 1976). Sex typing and the avoidance of cross-sex behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 48 54.
4. Berger, J., Fisek, H., Norman, R. Zelditch, M 1977). Status characteristics and social interaction. New York : Elsevier.
5. Burgoon, M. Klingle, R. S. (1998). Gender differences in being influential and/or influenced: A challenge to prior explanations. In D. J. Canary K. Dindia (Eds Sex differences and similarities in communication: Critical essays and empirical investigations of sex and gender in interaction (pp. 257 285). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
6. Carli, L. L. (1991). Gender, status, and influence. In E. J. Lawler, B. Markovski, C. L. Ridgeway H. Walker (Eds Advances in group processes (pp. 89 113). Greenwich, CT : JAI.
7. Carli, L. L. (1999). Gender, interpersonal power, and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 81 93.
8. Cohen, J. Cohen, P 1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.
9. Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S. Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 119 146.
10. Eagly, A. H. (1983). Sex and social influence: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 38, 971 981.
11. Eagly, A. H. Carli, L. L. (1981). Sex of researchers and sex-typed communications as determinants of sex differences in influenceability: A meta-analysis of social influence studies. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 1 20.
12. Eagly, A. H. Wood, W 1985). Gender and influenceability: Stereotype versus behavior. In V. E. O'Leary, R. K. Unger B. S. Wallston (Eds Women, gender, and social psychology (pp. 225 256). Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.
13. Eakins, B. W. Eakins, R. G. (1978). Sex differences in human communication. Boston : Houghton Mifflin.
14. Epley, N. Kruger, J 2005). When what you type isn't what they read: The perseverance of stereotypes and expectancies over email. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 414 422.
15. Frable, D. E. S. Bem, S. L. (1985). If you are gender schematic, all members of the opposite sex look alike. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 459 468.
16. Gilbert, D. T., Pelham, B. W. Krull, D. S. (1988). On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet persons perceived. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 733 740.
17. Herring, S. C. (1993). Gender and democracy in computer-mediated communication. Electronic Journal of Communication, 3 (2). Retrieved January 4, 2005, from http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/Eherring/ejc.txt
18. Herring, S. C. Martinson, A 2004). Assessing gender authenticity in computer-mediated language use: Evidence from an identity game. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 424 446.
19. Herschel, R. T., Cooper, T. R., Smith, L. F. Arrington, L 1994). Exploring numerical proportions in a unique context: The group support systems meeting environment. Sex Roles, 31, 99 123.
20. Hogg, M. A. Turner, J. C. (1987). Intergroup behavior, self-stereotyping and the salience of social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 325 340.
21. Joinson, A 1998). Causes and implications of disinhibited behavior on the Internet. In J. Gackenbach (Ed Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and transpersonal implications (pp. 43 60). San Diego, CA : Academic Press.
22. Kiesler, S. Sproull, L 1992). Group decision making and communication technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 96 123.
23. Koch, S. C., Mueller, B., Kruse, L. Zumbach, J 2005). Constructing gender in chat groups. Sex Roles, 53, 29 41.
24. Kray, L. J., Thompson, L. Galinsky, A 2001). Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 942 958.
25. Lakoff, R 1975). Language and women's place. New York : Harper & Row.
26. Lee, E.-J. (2005). Effects of the influence agent's sex and self-confidence on informational influence in computer-mediated communication: Quantitative vs. verbal presentation. Communication Research, 32, 29 58.
27. Lee, E.-J. (2006). When and how does depersonalization increase conformity to group norms in computer-mediated communication? Communication Research, 33, 423 447.
28. Matheson, K 1991). Social cues in computer-mediated negotiations: Gender makes a difference. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 137 145.
29. McKenzie-Mohr, D. Zanna, M. P. (1990). Treating women as sexual objects: Look to the gender schematic male who has viewed pornography. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 296 308.
30. McLuhan, M 1964). Understanding media. The extensions of man. London : Routledge.
31. Meeker, B. F. Weitzel-O'Neill (1977). Sex roles and interpersonal behavior in task-oriented groups. American Sociological Review, 42, 91 105.
32. Mulac, A 1998). The gender-linked language effect: Do language differences really make a difference? In Canary, D. J. Dindia, K. (Eds Gender differences and similarities in communication: Critical essays and empirical investigations of gender and gender in interaction (pp. 127 153). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
33. Mulac, A., Incantro, C. R. James, M. R. (1985). Comparison of the gender-linked language effect and sex role stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1099 1110.
34. Mulac, A., Jansma, L. L. Linz, D. G. (2002). Men's behavior toward women after viewing sexually-explicit films: Degradation makes a difference. Communication Monographs, 69, 311 328.
35. Mulac, A. Lundell, T. L. (1980). Differences in perceptions created by syntactic-semantic productions of male and female speakers. Communication Monographs, 47, 111 118.
36. Nowak, K. L. (2003). Gender categorization in computer-mediated communication: Exploring the utopian promise. Media Psychology, 5, 83 103.
37. Onorato, R. S. Turner, J. C. (2001). The "I," the "me," and the "us": The psychological group and self-concept maintenance and change. In C. Sedikides M. B. Brewer (Eds Individual self, relational self, collective self (pp. 147 170). Philadelphia : Psychology Press.
38. Orlofsky, J. L., Aslin, A. L. Ginsburg, S. D. (1977). Differential effectiveness of two classification procedures on the Bem sex role inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 41, 414 416.
39. Page, M. C., Braver, S. L. MacKinnon, D. P. (2003). Levine's guide to SPSS for Analysis of Variance. Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
40. Palomares, N. A. (2004). Gender schematicity, gender identity salience, and gender-linked language use. Human Communication Research, 30, 556 588.
41. Postmes, T. Spears, R 2002). Behavior online: Does anonymous computer communication reduce gender inequality? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1073 1083.
42. Postmes, T., Spears, R. Lea, M 1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25, 689 715.
43. Postmes, T., Spears, R. Lea, M 2002). Intergroup differentiation in computer-mediated communication: Effects of depersonalization. Group Dynamics, 6, 3 16.
44. Ridgeway, C 1988). Gender differences in task groups: A status and legitimacy account. In M. Welster Jr. M. Foschi (Eds Status generalization: New theory and research (pp. 188 206). Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press.
45. Savicki, V., Kelley, M. Oesterreich, E 1998). Effects of instructions on computer-mediated communication in single- or mixed-gender small task groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 14, 163 180.
46. Savicki, V., Kelley, M. Oesterreich, E 1999). Judgments of gender in computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 185 194.
47. Short, J., Williams, E. Christie, B 1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London : John Wiley.
48. Spears, R 2001). The interaction between the individual and the collective self. In C. Sedikides M. B. Brewer (Eds Individual self, relational self, collective self (pp. 171 198). Philadelphia : Psychology Press.
49. Spears, R. Lea, M 1992). Social influence and the influence of the "social" in computer-mediated communication. In M. Lea (Ed Context of computer-mediated communication (pp. 31 65). New York : Harvester Wheatsheaf.
50. Spears, R. Lea, M 1994). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 21, 427 259.
51. Spears, R., Postmes, T., Lea, M. Wolbert, A 2002). When are net effects gross products? The power of influence and the influence of power in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 91 107.
52. Sproull, L. Kiesler, S 1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
53. Tanis, M. Postmes, T 2003). Social cues and impression formation in CMC. Journal of Communication, 53, 676 693.
54. Tidwell, L. C. Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28, 317 348.
55. Turner, J. C. (1987). A self-categorization theory. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher M. S. Wetherell (Eds Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 42 67). Oxford, England : Basil Blackwell.
56. Wagner, D. G. Berger, J 1997). Gender and interpersonal task behaviors: Status expectation accounts. Sociological Perspectives, 40, 1 32.
57. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3 43.
58. Walther, J. Parks, M. B. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp J. A. Daly (Eds Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 529 563). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
59. Wood, W. Karten, S. J. (1986). Gender differences in interaction style as a product of perceived gender differences in competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 341 347.