Sex Roles

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 281–296 | Cite as

The effects of the sex composition of groups on style of social interaction

  • Jane Allyn Piliavin
  • Rachel Rosemann Martin
Article

Abstract

Bales's revised interaction category analyses (1970) were done from audio tapes of 77 four-person discussion groups: 46 mixed-sex groups, 15 female groups, and 16 male groups. Each group discussed three cases for a total of 35 minutes. The hypothesis tested was that females in mixed-sex groups would suppress their level of “task” contribution and engage in higher levels of “socioemotional” contributions when compared to the performance of women in one-sex groups. Males were also predicted to become more sex-role stereotyped in mixed-sex groups, showing the opposite effect. Results showed large sex differences, regardless of group composition, in the direction of traditional sex roles. The effect of group composition, however, was opposite to that predicted. An effect of an experimental intervention during the second discussion topic on subsequent sex-role performance was also found. Implications for education are discussed.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bales, R. F. Interaction process analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1950.Google Scholar
  2. Bales, R. F. Personality and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970.Google Scholar
  3. Bavelas, A., Hastorf, A. H., Gross, A. E., & Kite, W. K. Experiments on the alteration of group structure. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 55–70.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, E. M., & Cohen, L. R. Men and women: Personality patterns and contrasts. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1959, 59, 101–155.Google Scholar
  5. Bernard, J. Women and public interest: An essay in policy and protest. New York: Aldine, 1971.Google Scholar
  6. Block, J. H. Conceptions of sex role: Some cross-cultural and longitudinal perspectives. American Psychologist, 1973, 28, 512–526.Google Scholar
  7. Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosenkrantz, P. S. Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. The Journal of Social Issues, 1972, 28(2), 59–78.Google Scholar
  8. D'Andrade, R. G. Sex differences and cultural institutions. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1966.Google Scholar
  9. Goffman, E. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1959.Google Scholar
  10. Hartley, R. Sex role pressures in the socialization of the male child. Psychological Reports, 1959, 5(3), 457–468.Google Scholar
  11. Horner, M. Fail, bright woman. Psychology Today, 1969, 3(6), 36–38.Google Scholar
  12. Jackson, P., & Lahaderne, H. Inequalities of teacher—pupil contacts. In M. Silverman (Ed.), The experience of schooling. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971.Google Scholar
  13. Kagan, J. Sex typing and sex role identity. In M. L. Hoffman & L. W. Hoffman (Eds.), Review of child development research. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964.Google Scholar
  14. Komarovsky, M. Cultural contradictions and sex roles: The masculine case. American Journal of Sociology, 1973, 78, 873–884.Google Scholar
  15. Leik, R. K. Instrumentality and emotionality in family interaction. Sociometry, 1963, 26, 131–145.Google Scholar
  16. Levitan, T. E., & Chananie, J. C. Responses of female primary school teachers to sex-typed behaviors in male and female children. Child Development, 1972, 43, 1309–1316.Google Scholar
  17. Lockheed, M. E., & Hall, K. P. Conceptualizing sex as a status characteristic: applications to leadership training strategies. Journal of Social Issues, 1976, 32, 111–124.Google Scholar
  18. Maracek, J., Piliavin, J. A., Fitzsimmons, E., Krogh, E. C., Leader, E., & Trudell, B. Women as TV experts: The voice of authority? Journal of Communication, 1978, 28(1), 159–168.Google Scholar
  19. McKee, J. P., & Sherriffs, W. C. Men's and women's beliefs, ideals, and self-concepts. In J. M. Seidman (Ed.), The adolescent: A book of readings. New York: Dryden Press, 1960.Google Scholar
  20. O'Rourke, J. F. Field and laboratory: The decision-making behavior of family groups in two experimental conditions. Sociometry, 1963, 26, 422–435.Google Scholar
  21. Parsons, T., & Bales, R. F. Family, socialization, and interaction process. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1955.Google Scholar
  22. Piliavin, J. A. On feminine self-presentation in groups. In J. Roberts (Ed.), Beyond intellectual sexism: A new woman, a new reality. New York: David McKay Company, 1976.Google Scholar
  23. Sears, P. S., & Feldman, D. H. Teacher interactions with boys and with girls. The National Elementary Principal, 1966, 46(2), 30–35.Google Scholar
  24. Steinman, A. A study of the concept of the female role. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1963, 67(2), 275–352.Google Scholar
  25. Strauss, M. A. The influence of sex of child and social class on instrumental and expressive family roles in a laboratory setting. Sociology and Social Research, 1967, 52(1), 7–21.Google Scholar
  26. Strodtbeck, F. L., & Mann, R. D. Sex role differentiation in jury deliberation. Sociometry, 1956, 19(1), 3–11.Google Scholar
  27. Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.Google Scholar
  28. Zelditch, M., Jr. Role differentiation in the nuclear family: A comparative study. In T. Parsons & R. F. Bales (Eds.), Family socialization and interaction process. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1955.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jane Allyn Piliavin
    • 1
  • Rachel Rosemann Martin
    • 1
  1. 1.University of WisconsinUSA

Personalised recommendations