Advertisement

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 255–268 | Cite as

Division of labor in conversations: Are Fishman's results replicable and generalizable?

  • Linda M. McMullen
  • Anne E. Vernon
  • Tracy Murton
Article

Abstract

Fishman's (1978a) conclusion that women do the bulk of the support work in their conversations with male partners has had widespread appeal. In this article, we present the results of two studies designed to assess the generalizability and replicability of her findings. In Study 1. the get-acquainted conversations of 20 mixed-sex, 10 male same-sex, and 10 female same-sex dyads were analyzed for the support strategies identified by Fishman. No support for a sexual division of labor was found. In Study 2, we analyzed the casual, at-home conversations of 17 intimate male-female couples. Again, we found no evidence that the women used more of the support strategies than their male partners. Rather, our findings suggest that the women may have helped to sustain the conversations with their male partners simply by talking more. The appeal of Fishman's conclusions in the absence of empirical evidence suggests that she has touched on a mythic truth.

Keywords

Empirical Evidence Cognitive Psychology Male Partner Support Strategy Support Work 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahrentzen, S., & Groat, L. N. (1992). Rethinking architectural education: Patriarchal conventions and alternative visions from the perspectives of women faculty.The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 9, 95–111.Google Scholar
  2. Austin, A. M. B., Salehi, M., & Leffler, A. (1987). Gender and developmental differences in children's conversations.Sex Roles, 16, 497–510.Google Scholar
  3. Baumann, M. (1976). Two features of “women's speech?” In B. L. Dubois & I. Crouch (Eds.),The sociology of the languages of American women. San Antonio, TX.: Trinity University.Google Scholar
  4. Baxter, L. A., & Wilmot, W. W. (1983). Communication characteristics of relationships with differential growth rates.Communication Monographs. 50, 264–272.Google Scholar
  5. Bilous, F. R., & Krauss, R. M. (1988). Dominance and accommodation in the conversational behaviours of same- and mixed-gender dyads.Language and Communication, 8, 183–194.Google Scholar
  6. Boden, D., & Bielby, D. D. (1986). The way it was: Topical organization in elderly conversation.Language and Communication, 6, 73–89.Google Scholar
  7. Cameron, D. (1992). ‘Not gender difference but the difference gender makes’-explanation in research on sex and language.International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 94, 13–26.Google Scholar
  8. Carli, L. L. (1989). Gender differences in interaction style and influence.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 565–576.Google Scholar
  9. Carli, L. L. (1990). Gender, language, and influence.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 941–951.Google Scholar
  10. Chafetz, J. S. (1988). The gender division of labor and the reproduction of female disadvantage: Towards an integrated theory.Journal of Family Issues, 9, 108–131.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cupach, W. R., & Metts, S. (1986). Accounts of relational dissolution: A comparison of marital and nonmarital relationships.Communication Monographys, 53, 311–334.Google Scholar
  12. DeFrancisco, V. L. (1992). Ethnography and gender: Learning to talk like girls and boys.Topics in Language Disorders, 12, 40–53.Google Scholar
  13. Dubois, B. L., & Crouch, I. (1975). The question of tag questions in women's speech: They don't really use more of them, do they?Language in Society, 4, 289–294.Google Scholar
  14. Emmison, M. (1989). A conversation on trial? The case of the Ananda Marga conspiracy tapes.Journal of Pragmatics, 13, 363–380.Google Scholar
  15. Fishman, P. M. (1977). Interactional shitwork.Heresies, 1, 99–101.Google Scholar
  16. Fishman, P. M. (1978a). Interaction: The work women do.Social Problems, 25, 397–406.Google Scholar
  17. Fishman, P. M. (1978b). What do couples talk about when they're alone? In D. Butturff & E. L. Epstein (Eds.),Women's language and style (pp. 11–22). Akron, OH: University of Akron Press.Google Scholar
  18. Fishman, P. M. (1980). Conversational insecurity. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson, & P. M. Smith (Eds.),Language: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 127–132). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fishman, P. M. (1983). Interaction: The work women do, Revised version in B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, & N. Henley, (Eds.),Language, gender, and society, (pp. 89–101). Cambridge, England: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  20. Gould, M. (1980). The new sociology.SIGNS: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 5, 459–467.Google Scholar
  21. Hirschman, L. (1994). Female-male differences in conversational interaction.Language in Society, 23, 427–442.Google Scholar
  22. Holmes, J. (1986). Functions ofyou know in women's and men's speech.Language in Society, 15, 1–22.Google Scholar
  23. Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and boosters in women's and men's speech.Language and Communication, 10, 185–205.Google Scholar
  24. Kimble, C. E., & Musgrove, J. I. (1988). Dominance in arguing mixed-sex dyads: Visual dominance patterns, talking time, and speech loudness.Journal of Research in Personality, 22, 1–16.Google Scholar
  25. Kohn, A. (1988). Girl talk, guy talk: Do men and women really have distinctive conversational styles?Psychology Today, 22, 65–66.Google Scholar
  26. Kollock, P., Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1985). Sex and power in interaction: Conversational privileges and duties.American Sociological Review, 50, 34–46.Google Scholar
  27. Korzenny, B. A. G., Korzenny, F., & Sanchez de Rota, G. (1985). Women's communication in Mexican organizations.Sex Roles, 12, 867–876.Google Scholar
  28. Krokoff, L. J. (1987). The correlates of negative affect in marriage: An exploratory study of gender differences.Journal of Family Issues, 8, 111–135.Google Scholar
  29. Leet-Pellegrini, H. M. (1980). Conversational dominance as a function of gender and expertise. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson, & P. M. Smith (Eds.),Language: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 97–104). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  30. Livingstone, S., & Green, G. (1986). Television advertisements and the protrayal of gender.British Journal of Social Psychology, 25 149–154.Google Scholar
  31. Marshall, L. (1988). Analyzing the culture of school leadership.Education and Urban Society, 20, 262–275.Google Scholar
  32. McCloskey, L. A., & Coleman, L. M. (1992). Difference without dominance: Children's talk in mixed-sex and same-sex dyads.Sex Roles, 27, 241–257.Google Scholar
  33. McLaughlin, M. L., Cody, M. J., Kane, M. L., & Robey, C. S. (1981). Sex differences in story receipt and story sequencing behaviors in dyadic conversations.Human Communication Research, 7, 99–116.Google Scholar
  34. McMillan, J. R., Clifton, A. K., McGrath, D., & Gale, W. S. (1977). Women's language: Uncertainty or interpersonal sensitivity and emotionality?Sex Roles, 3, 545–559.Google Scholar
  35. Molotch, H. L., & Boden, D. (1985). Talking social structure: Discourse, domination and the Watergate hearings.American Sociological Review, 50, 273–288.Google Scholar
  36. Moore, S. F., Shaffer, L., Goodsell, D. A., & Baringoldz, G. (1983). Gender or situationally determined spoken language differences? The case of the leadership situation.International Journal of Women's Studies, 6, 44–53.Google Scholar
  37. Mulac, A. (1989). Men's and women's talk in same-gender and mixed-gender dyads: Power or polemic?Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 8, 249–270.Google Scholar
  38. Mulac, A., & Lundell, T. L. (1986). Linguistic contributors to the gender-linked language effect.Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 5, 81–101.Google Scholar
  39. Mulac, A., Wiemann, J. M., Widenmann, S. J., & Gibson, T. W. (1988). Male/female language differences and effects in same-sex and mixed-sex dyads: The gender-linked language effect.Communication Monographs. 55, 315–335.Google Scholar
  40. Nordenstam, K. (1992). Male and female conversational style.International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 94, 75–98.Google Scholar
  41. Norland, S. (1980). An interactionist interpretation of sex differences in violence.Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 1, 245–260.Google Scholar
  42. Oxford, R., Nyikos, M., & Ehrman, M. (1988). Vive la différence? Reflections on sex differences in use of language learning strategies.Foreign Language Annals, 21, 321–329.Google Scholar
  43. Piliavin, J. A., & Martin, R. R. (1978). The effects of sex composition of groups on style of social interaction.Sex Roles, 4, 281–296.Google Scholar
  44. Porter, N., Geis, F. L., Cooper, E., & Newman, E. (1985). Androgyny and leadership in mixed-sex groups.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 808–823.Google Scholar
  45. Roger, D. B., & Schumacher, A. (1983). Effects of individual differences on dyadic conversational strategies.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 700–705.Google Scholar
  46. Selfe, C. L., & Meyer, P. R. (1991). Testing claims for on-line conferences.Wirtten Communication, 8, 163–192.Google Scholar
  47. Sheldon, A. (1990). Pickle fights: Gendered talk in preschool disputes.Discourse Processes, 13, 5–31.Google Scholar
  48. Simkins-Bullock, J. A., & Wildman, B. G. (1991). An investigation into the relationships between gender and language.Sex Roles, 24, 149–160.Google Scholar
  49. Smeltzer, L. R., & Watson, K. W. (1986). Gender differences in verbal communication during negotiations.Communication Research Reports, 3, 74–79.Google Scholar
  50. Tannen, D. (1990).You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  51. Thorne, B., Kramarac, C., & Henley, N. (Eds.), (1983).Language, gender and society, Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  52. Waitzkin, H. (1984). Doctor-patient communication: Clinical implications of social scientific research.Journal of the American Medical Association, 252, 2441–2446.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. West, C. (1982). Why can't a woman be more like a man?Work and Occupations, 9, 5–29.Google Scholar
  54. West, C., & Garcia, A. (1988). Conversational shiftwork: A study of topical transitions between women and men.Social Problems, 35, 551–575.Google Scholar
  55. Wood, W., & Karten, S. J. (1986). Sex differences in interaction style as a product of perceived sex differences in competence.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 341–347.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linda M. McMullen
    • 1
  • Anne E. Vernon
    • 2
  • Tracy Murton
    • 1
  1. 1.University of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada
  2. 2.University of VictoriaVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations