Abstract
The present study set out to test the popular stereotype of male communicative dominance in the context of dealing with bureaucracy. The study examined the responses of male and female officials of various bureaucratic organizations to different persuasive appeals activated by male and female clients. Log-linear analysis was used to reveal the relationships between sex composition of client-official dyads and outcome across types of organizations and types of persuasive appeal. Findings indicate that the sex of the client and the official significantly affected the outcome only when the type of appeal was taken into account. Although male and female clients did not differ in rates of successful outcome, males were more persuasive when using “stronger” (i.e., normative) appeals, and females were more effective when applying “weaker” (i.e., altruistic) appeals. The results demonstrate that no simple answer can be found to the old issue of sex-bound persuasiveness. The answer is highly dependent on a combination of contextual aspects, communicative tactics, and measures of response.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baird, J. E. Sex differences in group communication: A review of relevant research. Quarterly Journal of Speech 1976, 62 179–192.
Bales, R. F. Interaction Process Analysis. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969.
Berryman, C. L. Attitudes toward male and female sex-appropriate and sex-inappropriate language. In C. Berryman & V. Eman (Eds.), Communication, language and sex. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House, 1980.
Blakar, R. M. Distinguishing social and individual psychology. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 1974, 15 241–243.
Blakar, R. M. Rumination about conceptual and methodological problems in disentangling social and individual psychology. Tidskrift for Norsk Psykologforening 1977, 14 2–11.
Blakar, R. M., & Pederson, T. B. Control and self-confidence as reflected in sex-bound patterns in communication: An experimental approach. Acta Sociologica 1980, 23 33–53.
Blau, P., & Scott, R. W. Formal organization: A comparative approach. San Francisco: Chandler, 1962.
Bostrom, R. N., & Kemp, A. P. Type of speech, sex of speaker and sex of subjects as factors influencing persuasion, Central States Speech Journal 1969, 20 245–251.
Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosenkrantz, P. S. Sex role stereotypes and clinical judgments of mental health. Journal of Consulting Psychology 1970, 34 1–7.
Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosenktrantz, P. S. Sex role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues 1972, 28 59–78.
Danet, B. Coping with bureaucracy: The Israel case. Social Forces 1972, 52 7–22.
Davis, J. Hierarchical models for significance tests in multivariate contingency tables. In H. L. Costner (Eds.), Sociological methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974.
Eagly, A. H. Stereotypes about the Influencability of Women. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Interdisciplinary Congress on Women, University of Haifa, December 1981.
Fienberg, S. E. The analysis of cross-classified categorical data. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1977.
Goodman, L. The multivariate analysis of qualitative data: Interaction among multiple classifications. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1970, 63 1091–1131.
Goodman, L. A general model for the analysis of surveys. American Journal of Sociology 1972, 77 1035–1086.
Goodman, L. Analyzing qualitative/categorical data. Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Books, 1978.
Hall, E. T. The silent language. New York: Doubleday, 1959.
Katz, E., & Danet, B. Petition and persuasive appeals: A study of official-client relations. American Sociological Review 1966, 31 811–822.
Knoke, D., & Burke, P. J. Log-linear models. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1980.
Kramer, C. Folklinguistics. Psychology Today 1974, 8 82–85.
Kramer, C. Female and male perception of female and male speech. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Sociological Association, 1975.
Kramer, C., Thorne, B., & Henley, N. Language and communications: Review essay. Signs 1978, 3 638–651.
Lever, H. Inferring the intervening and dependent variable. British Journal of Sociology 1979, 30 81–90.
Morelock, J. C. Sex differences in susceptibility to social influence. Sex Roles 1980, 6 537–548.
Ruble, D. N., & Higgins, E. T., Effects of group sex composition on self-presentation and sextyping. Journal of Social Issues 1976, 32 387–395.
Thompson, W. N. Quantitative research in public address and communication. New York: Random House, 1967.
Thompson, W. N. The process of persuasion. New York: Harper & Row, 1975.
Thorne, B., & Henley, N. Differences and dominance: An overview of language, gender and society. In B. Thorne & N. Henley (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House, 1975.
Upton, G. The analysis of cross tabulated data. Chichester, England: Wiley, 1978.
Weimann, G. Dealing with bureaucracy: The effectiveness of different persuasive appeals. Social Psychology Quarterly 1982, 42 136–144.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by the Research Authority of the University of Haifa. The author wishes to thank the late Joseph Shepher, Marilyn Safir, Maya Weinberg, and Brenda Danet and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article, and to acknowledge the contribution of Henry Lever in providing the MULTC program.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Weimann, G. Sex differences in dealing with bureaucracy. Sex Roles 12, 777–790 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00287871
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00287871