Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 127–140 | Cite as

Interpersonal Reasons for Interpersonal Perceptions: Gender-incongruent Purpose Goals and Nonverbal Judgment Accuracy

Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

Women’s tendency to outperform men on measures of accuracy in interpreting the meaning of nonverbal behavior might be due to such measures being more congruent with women’s interpersonal goals than men’s. The present study examined undergraduate men’s and women’s (N = 41) nonverbal judgment accuracy on the Interpersonal Perception Task-15 (IPT-15; Costanzo & Archer, 1993 [.The interpersonal perception task-15 (IPT-15). Berkeley: University of California Center for Media and Independent Learning) when the purpose for using their judgment skills was manipulated to be either congruent or incongruent with stereotypic “masculine” and “feminine” interpersonal goals. Results showed that each gender was at a relative disadvantage in judgment accuracy in the gender-incongruent goal conditions: women were relatively less accurate when they thought the IPT-15 measured judgment skills of use to interrogators in the military, whereas men were relatively less accurate when they thought the IPT-15 measured judgment skills of use to social workers in the social services. Discussion centers on the importance of matching individuals’ interpersonal goals to the purpose goals of the measure when using measures of interpersonal sensitivity.

Keywords

Gender Goals interpersonal sensitivity Nonverbal judgment 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Grant No. T32-MH19728 from the National Institute of Mental Health to the first author. The authors wish to thank Brittany LaFuse, Sandra Lee, Jessica Peugh, Tanya Patel, Katie Riggle, Daveen Ruiz, and T. Ryan Snyder for their assistance with data collection and analysis, and Judith Hall, Marianne McGrath, and Marianne Schmid Mast for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript.

References

  1. Ames, D. R., & Kammrath, L. K. (2004). Mind-reading and metacognition: Narcissism, not actual competence, predicts self-estimated ability. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28, 187–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bar-Haim, G., & Wilkes, J. M. (1989). A cognitive interpretation of the marginality and underrepresentation of women in science. Journal of Higher Education, 60, 371–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation: Testing multiple goal models. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 80, 706–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bianco, A. T., Higgins, E. T., & Klem, A. (2003). How “fun/importance” fit affects performance: Relating implicit theories to instructions. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1091–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Briton, N. J., & Hall, J. A. (1995). Beliefs about female and male nonverbal communication. Sex Roles, 32, 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cataldi, A. E., & Reardon, R. (1996). Gender, interpersonal orientation, and manipulation tactic use in close relationships. Sex Roles, 35, 205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Costanzo, M., & Archer, D. (1989). Interpreting the expressive behavior of others: The interpersonal perception task. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13, 225–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Costanzo, M., & Archer, D. (1993). The Interpersonal Perception Task-15 (IPT-15), Berkeley: University of California Center for Media and Independent Learning.Google Scholar
  9. Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Eccles, J. S. (1987). Gender roles and women’s achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 135–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Graham, T., & Ickes, W. (1997). When women’s intuition isn’t greater than men’s. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Empathic accuracy (pp. 117–143). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  13. Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and expressive style. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hall, J. A. (2001). The PONS test and the psychometric approach to measuring interpersonal sensitivity. In J. A. Hall, & F. J. Bernieri (Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement (pp. 143–160). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  15. Hall J. A., & Bernieri F. J. (Eds.) (2001). Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Erlhaum.Google Scholar
  16. Harackiewicz, J. M., & Sansone, C. (1991). Goals and intrinsic motivation: You can get there from here. In M. L. Maehr, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.) Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 7, pp. 21–49). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.Google Scholar
  17. Helgeson, V. S., & Fritz, H. L. (1998). A theory of unmitigated communion. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 2, 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Horgan, T. G., Schmid Mast, M., Hall, J. A., & Carter, J. D. (2004). Gender differences in memory for the appearance of others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 185–196.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ickes, W., Gesn, P. R., & Graham, T. (2000). Gender differences in empathic accuracy: Differential ability or differential motivation? Personal Relationships, 7, 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Iizuka, Y., Patterson, M. L., & Machen, J. C. (2002). Accuracy and confidence on the interpersonal perception task: A Japanese–American comparison. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 26, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Isaac, J., Sansone, C., & Smith, J. L. (1999). Other people as a source of interest in an activity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 239–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaplan, M. F., Schaefer, E. G., & Zinkiewicz, L. (1994). Member preference for discussion content in anticipated group decisions: Effects of type of issue and group interactive goal. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 489–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klein, K. J. K., & Hodges, S. D. (2001). Gender differences, motivation, and empathic accuracy: When it pays to understand. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 720–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. Oxford, England: Harpers.Google Scholar
  25. Leyens, J.-P., Desert, M., Croizet, J.-C., & Darcis, C. (2000). Stereotype threat: Are lower status and history of stigmatization preconditions of stereotype threat? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1189–1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Morgan, C., Isaac, J. D., & Sansone, C. (2001). The role of interest in understanding the career choices of female and male college students. Sex Roles, 44, 295–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mufson, L., & Nowicki, S., Jr. (1991). Factors affecting the accuracy of facial affect recognition. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 815–822.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nowicki, S., Jr., & Hartigan, M. (1987). Accuracy of facial affect recognition as a function of locus of control orientation and anticipated interpersonal interaction. The Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 363–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nowicki, S., & Richman, D. (1985). The effect of standard, motivation, and strategy instructions on the facial processing accuracy of internal and external subjects. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 354–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rosenthal, R., Hall, J. A., DiMatteo, M. R., Rogers, P. L., & Archer, D. (1979). Sensitivity to nonverbal communication: The PONS test. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Rosip, J. C., & Hall, J. A. (2004). Knowledge of nonverbal cues, gender, and nonverbal decoding accuracy. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28, 268–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sansone, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). “I don’t feel like it”: The function of interest in self-regulation. In L. L. Martin, & A. Tesser (Eds.), Striving and feeling: Interactions among goals, affect, and self-regulation (pp. 203–228). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  34. Sansone, C., & Morgan, C. (1992). Intrinsic motivation and education: Competence in context. Motivation and Emotion, 16, 249–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sansone, C., Sachau, D. A., & Weir, C. (1989). Effects of instruction on intrinsic interest: The importance of context. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 57, 819–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sansone, C., & Smith, J. L. (2000). The “how” of goal pursuit: Interest and self-regulation. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 306–309.Google Scholar
  37. Sarason, I. G. (1980). Introduction to the study of test anxiety. In I.G. Sarason (Ed.), Test anxiety: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 3–14). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Barquissau, M. (2004). The costs of accepting gender differences: The role of stereotype endorsement in women’s experience in the math domain. Sex Roles, 50, 835–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith, J. L. (2004). Understanding the process of stereotype threat: A review of mediational variables and new performance goal directions. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 177–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smith, J. L., & Johnson, C. S. (2006). A stereotype boost or chocking under pressure? Positive gender stereotypes and men who are low in domain identification. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28, 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smith, J. L., Morgan, C. L., & Sansone, C. (2001). Getting (inter) personal: The role of other people in the self-regulation of interest. In F. Columbus (Ed.), Advances in psychology research (Vol. V). Huntington, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  42. Smith, J. L., & White, P. H. (2002). An examination of implicitly activated, explicitly activated, and nullified stereotypes on mathematical performance: It’s not just a woman’s issue. Sex Roles, 47, 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African-Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Strough, J., Berg, C. A., & Sansone, C. (1996). Goals for solving everyday problems across the life span: Age and gender differences in the salience of interpersonal concerns. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1106–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Swap, W. C., & Rubin, J. Z. (1983). Measurement of interpersonal orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 208–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Taylor, S. E., Klein, L. C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., Gurung, R. A. R., & Updegraff, J. A. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological Review, 107, 411–429.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thomas, G., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Lange, C. (1997). On-line empathic accuracy in marital interaction. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 72, 839–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Timmers, M., Fischer, A. H., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1998). Gender differences in motives for regulating emotions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 974–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Michigan-FlintFlintUSA
  2. 2.Montana State UniversityBozeman59717USA

Personalised recommendations