Psychological mediators of sex differences in emotional support: A reflection on the mosaic

International Journal of Phytoremediation

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 71-79

  Burleson, Brant R ^a  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85064800065     PISSN: 15226514     EISSN: 15497879     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08934210209367753     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Abelson, R. P., 1985. A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97: 129–133.
2. Allen, M., 1998. “ Methodological considerations when examining a gendered world ”. In Sex differences and similarities in communication, Edited by: Canary, D. J., and Dindia, K., 427–444. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Aries, E. J., 1996. Men and women in interaction: Reconsidering the differences, New York: Oxford University Press.
4. Berger, C. R., 1997. Planning strategic interaction, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Buhrke, R. A., and Fuqua, D. R., 1987. Sex differences in same– and cross–sex supportive relationships. Sex Roles, 17: 339–352.
6. Burleson, B. R., and Gilstrap, C. M., Explaining sex differences in interaction goals in support situations: Some mediating effects of expressivity and instrumentality. Communication Reports, (this issue)
7. Burleson, B. R., and Planalp, S., 2000. Producing emotion(al) messages. Communication Theory, 10: 221–250.
8. Canary, D. J., and Dindia, K., eds. 1998. Sex differences and similarities in communication, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Canary, D. J., and Emmers–Sommer, T. M., 1997. Sex and gender differences in personal relationships, New York: Guilford.
10. Canary, D. J., and Hause, K. S., 1993. Is there any reason to research sex differences in communication?. Communication Quarterly, 41: 129–144.
11. Cutrona, C. E., and Suhr, J. A., 1994. “ Social support communication in the context of marriage: An analysis of couples’ supportive interactions ”. In Communication of social support: Messages, interactions, relationships, and community, Edited by: Burleson, B. R., Albrecht, T. L., and Sarason, I. G., 113–135. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12. Deaux, K., and Major, B., 1987. Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender–related behavior. Psychological Review, 94: 369–389.
13. Eagly, A. H., 1995. The science and politics of comparing women and men. American Psychologist, 50: 145–158.
14. Eagly, A. H., and Wood, W., 1991. Explaining sex differences in social behavior: A meta–analytic perspective. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 17: 306–315.
15. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., and Diekman, A. B., 2000. “ Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal ”. In The developmental social psychology of gender, Edited by: Eckes, T., and Trautner, H. M., 123–174. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Goldsmith, D. J., and Dun, S. A., 1997. Sex differences and similarities in the communication of social support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14: 317–337.
17. Goldsmith, D. J., and Fulfs, P. A., 1999. “You just don't have the evidence”: An analysis of claims and evidence in Deborah Tannen's You Just Don't Understand ”. In Communication yearbook, Edited by: Roloff, M. E., Vol. 22, 1–49. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Gray, J., 1992. Men are from Mars, women are from Venus, New York: Harper Collins.
19. Greene, J. O., ed. 1997a. Message production: Advances in communication theory, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Greene, J. O., 1997b. “ A second generation action assembly theory ”. In Message production: Advances in communication theory, Edited by: Greene, J. O., 151–170. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Hale, J. L., Tighe, M. R., and Mongeau, P. A., 1997. Effects of event type and sex on comforting messages. Communication Research Reports, 14: 214–220.
22. Hewes, D. E., ed. 1995. The cognitive bases of interpersonal communication, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Jones, S. M., and Burleson, B. R., Effects of provider and target sex on the experience and effects of comforting messages varying in degree of verbal person centeredness and nonverbal immediacy: An experimental investigation, Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin. (in preparation) (Unpublished paper)
24. Kunkel, A. W., Explaining sex differences in the evaluation of comforting messages: The mediating role of interaction goals. Communication Reports, (this issue)
25. Kunkel, A. W., and Burleson, B. R., 1998. “ Social support and the emotional lives of men and women: An assessment of the different cultures perspective ”. In Sex differences and similarities in communication, Edited by: Canary, D. J., and Dindia, K., 101–125. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Kunkel, A. W., and Burleson, B. R., 1999. Assessing explanations for sex differences in emotional support: A test of the different cultures and skill specialization accounts. Human Communication Research, 25: 307–340.
27. MacGeorge, E. L., Clark, R. A., and Gillihan, S. J., Sex differences in the provision of skillful emotional support: The mediating role of self–efficacy. Communication Reports, (this issue)
28. Prentice, D. A., and Miller, D. T., 1992. When small effects are impressive. Psychological Bulletin, 112: 160–164.
29. Samter, W., How gender and cognitive complexity influence the provision of emotional support: A study of indirect effects. Communication Reports, (this issue)
30. Shields, S. A., 2000. “ Thinking about gender, thinking about theory: Gender and emotional experience ”. In Gender and emotion: Social psychological perspectives, Edited by: Fischer, A. H., 3–23. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
31. Shields, S. A., Steinke, P., and Koster, B. A., 1995. The double bind of caregiving: Representation of gendered emotion in American advice literature. Sex Roles, 33: 467–489.
32. Tannen, D., 1990. You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation, New York: William Morrow.
33. Thorne, B., 1993. Gender play: Girls and boys in school, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
34. Vangelisti, A. L., 1997. Gender differences, similarities, and interdependencies: Some problems with the different cultures perspective. Personal Relationships, 4: 243–253.
35. Wilson, S. R., 1995. “ Elaborating the cognitive rules model of interaction goals: The problem of accounting for individual differences in goal formation ”. In Communication yearbook, Edited by: Burleson, B. R., Vol. 18, 3–25. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36. Wood, J. T., 1993. “ Engendered relations: Interaction, caring, power, and responsibility in intimacy ”. In Social context and relationships, Edited by: Duck, S., 26–54. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
37. Wood, J. T., and Dindia, K., 1998. “ What's the difference? A dialogue about differences and similarities between women and men ”. In Sex differences and similarities in communication, Edited by: Canary, D. J., and Dindia, K., 19–40. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.