Sex Roles

, Volume 51, Issue 3–4, pp 171–186 | Cite as

Constructing Gender: A Lens-Model Inspired Gender Communication Approach

  • Sabine C. Koch

Abstract

In this experiment (n=115), I followed a lens-model approach (Brunswik, 1956) to investigate the communicative construction of gender. For this purpose, a situation was created in which gender was not clearly visible and thus existed mainly as a gender-assumption in the eye of the beholder. The study featured the perception of a team leader during a team-meeting presented in a masked video-clip and either labeled as Mr. K or Mrs. K (Goldberg-paradigm study). Results suggested that the assumption of the leader's gender (gender-assumption) had a systematic impact on trait-ratings of the leader in the unexpected direction that “women” were rated higher on agentic traits than “men.” This was interpreted as an expectancy-based double-standard effect in leadership perception on the basis of nonverbal cue utilization. Furthermore, differences in the predictive values of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic cues were suggested in the analysis of verbal cue utilization. Overall, the lens-model perspective provides a useful framework by making perceptual and behavioral processes of gender construction more transparent.

gender construction language nonverbal communication stereotypes cue analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Aries, E. (1987). Gender and communication. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 7 ,149–176.Google Scholar
  2. Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41 ,258–290.Google Scholar
  3. Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  4. Barsalou, L. W., Niedenthal, P. M., Barbey, A. K., & Ruppert, J. A. (2003). Social embodiment. In B.H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 43, pp. 43–92). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Berger, J., Connor, T. L., & Fisek, M. H. (1974). Expectation states theory. A theoretical research program.Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.Google Scholar
  6. Berger J., Fisek, M. H., Norman, R. Z., & Zeldich, M. Jr. (1977). Status characteristics and social interaction: An expectationstates approach.New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  7. Berger, J., Webster, M., Jr., Ridgeway, C. L., & Rosenholtz, S. J. (1986). Status cues, expectations, and behaviors. In E. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 3, pp. 1–22). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  8. Berry, D. S., Misovich, S. J., Kean, K. J., & Baron, R. M.(1992). Effects of disruption of structure on perceptions of social causality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18 ,237–244.Google Scholar
  9. Biemans, M. (1999). Production and perception of gendered voice quality. In U. Pasero & F. Braun (Eds.), Wahrnehmung und Herstellung von Geschlecht-Perceiving and performing gender (pp. 63–72). Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. Biernat, M. (1995). The shifting standards model: Implications of stereotype accuracy for social judgment. In Y. Lee, L. Jussim, & C. R. McCauley (Eds.), Stereotype accuracy: Toward appreciating group differences (pp. 87–114). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  11. Biernat, M., & Fuegen, K. (2001). Shifting standards and the evaluation of competence. Complexity in gender-based judgement and decision making. Journal of Social Issues, 57 ,707–724.Google Scholar
  12. Biernat, M., & Kobrynowicz, D. (1997). Gender-and race-based standards of competence: Lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72 ,544–557.Google Scholar
  13. Birdwhistell, R. L. (1972). Kinesics and context. Essays on body motion communication.New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar
  14. Blythe, P. W., Todd, P. M., & Miller, G. F. (1999). How motion reveals intention. Categorizing social interactions. In G. Gigerenzer, P. Todd, and the ABC Research Group (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 257–285). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Braun, F., Eckes, T., Gottburgsen, A., & Oelkers, S. (2000). Stereotypgestützte Sprachrezeption [Stereotypic perception of language]. Abschlussbericht DFG-Projekt Br 1627/4-1. University of Kiel: Unpublished Research Report.Google Scholar
  16. Brunswik, E. (1940). Thing constancy as measured by correlation coefficients. Psychological Review, 47 ,69–78.Google Scholar
  17. Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  18. Burgoon, J. K. (1994). Nonverbal signals. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 229–285). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Butler, D., & Geis, F. (1990). Nonverbal affect responses to male and female leaders: Implications for leadership evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58 ,48–59.Google Scholar
  20. Cacioppo, J. T., Priester, J. R., & Berntson, G. G. (1993). Rudimentary determinants of attitudes II: Arm flexion and extension have differential effects on attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 ,5–17.Google Scholar
  21. Carli, L. L. (1990). Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 ,941–951.Google Scholar
  22. Carli, L. L., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender effects on influence and emergent leadership. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 203–222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Carli, L. L., LaFleur, S. J., & Loeber, C. C. (1995). Nonverbal behavior, gender, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68 ,1030–1041.Google Scholar
  24. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Education and Psychological Measurement, 20 ,37–46.Google Scholar
  25. Davison, H. K., & Burke, M. J. (2000). Sex discrimination in simulated employment contexts: A meta-analytic investigation. J ournal of Vocational Behavior, 56,225–248.Google Scholar
  26. Deaux, K. (1998). An overview of research on gender: Four themes from three decades.In W. B. Swann Jr., J. H. Langloise, & L. A. Gilbert (Eds.), Sexism and stereotypes in modern society: The gender science of Janet Taylor Spence (pp. 11–33). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  27. Deaux, K., & LaFrance, M. (1998). Gender. In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 788–827). Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  28. Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 3 ,369–389.Google Scholar
  29. Dovidio, J. F., Brown, C. E., Heltmann, K., Ellyson, S. L., & Keating, C. F. (1988). Power displays between women and men in discussions of gender-linked tasks: A multichannel study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55 ,580–587.Google Scholar
  30. Dovidio, J. F., Ellyson, S. L., Keating, C. F., Heltman, K., & Brown C. E. (1988). The relationship of social power to visual displays of dominance between men and women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 ,233–242.Google Scholar
  31. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A socialrole interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.Psychological Review, 109 ,573–598.Google Scholar
  33. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 ,878–902.Google Scholar
  34. Foddy, M., & Smithson, M. (1999). Can gender inequalities be eliminated? Social Psychology Quarterly, 62 ,307–324.Google Scholar
  35. Foschi, M. (1992). Gender and double standards for competence. In C. Ridgeway (Ed.) Gender, interaction and inequality (pp. 181–207). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Foschi, M. (2000). Double standards for competence.Annual Review of Sociology, 26 ,21–42.Google Scholar
  37. Geis, F. L. (1993). Self-fulfilling prophecies: A social psychological view of gender. In A. E. Beall & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender (pp. 9–54). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  38. Goldberg, P. (1968). Are women prejudiced against women? Transaction, 5 ,316–322.Google Scholar
  39. Grammer, K., Fidova, V., & Fieder, M. (1997). The communication paradox and a possible solution: Toward a radical empiricism. In A. Schmitt, K. Atzwanger, K. Grammer & K. Schäfer (Eds.), New aspects of human ethology (pp. 91–120). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  40. Hall, J. A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological Bulletin, 85 ,845–857.Google Scholar
  41. Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and expressive style.London: Hopkins.Google Scholar
  42. Hannah, A., & Murachver, T. (1999). Gender and conversational style as predictors of conversational behavior. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18 ,153–174.Google Scholar
  43. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  44. Heider, F., & Simmel, M. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. American Journal of Psychology, 57 ,243–259.Google Scholar
  45. Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women's ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57 ,657–674.Google Scholar
  46. Keki, V. (2000). Der menschliche Gang als Signal: Einsatz eines künstlichen neuronalen Netzwerks in der Bewegungsanalyse [Human gait as a signal: Using an artficial neural network in movement analysis]. Wien: Diplomarbeit. Retreived June 20, 2001, from <http://www.urbanethology.at/> Google Scholar
  47. Kendon, A. (1982). The organization of behavior in face-to-face interaction: Observations on the development of a methodology. In K. R. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.), Handbook of methods in nonverbal behavior research (pp. 440–505). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Kestenberg, J. S. (1975). Parents and children.Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.Google Scholar
  49. Kestenberg-Amighi, J., Loman, S., Sossin, K. M., & Lewis, P. (1999). Themeaning of movement:Developmental and clinical perspectives of the Kestenberg Movement Profile .Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach.Google Scholar
  50. Koch, S. C. (2000). WorkComm-G. Entwicklung eines Fragebogens zur geschlechtsspezifischen Arbeitsplatzkommunikation [Development of a questionnaire for gender-related workplace communication]. Heidelberg: Unpublished manuscript. Questionnaire available at http://workcomm.uni-hd.de (German only).Google Scholar
  51. Koch, S. C. (2002). Evaluative affect display toward male and female leaders and its mediation in small groups. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  52. Koch, S. C., Kruse, L., Schey, S., & Thimm, C. (1999). Kommunikationseinstellungen und-erwartungen von Männern und Frauen am Arbeitsplatz [Communication attitudes and experiences of women and men at the workplace]. WorkComm Arbeitsbericht Nr. 1. Universität Heidelberg. [Online document] Available at http://workcomm.uni-hd.de sers2004.cls (04/06/2004 v1.1 LaTeX2e SERS document class) pp1296-sers-491460 August 5, 2004 18:16Google Scholar
  53. Koch, S. C., Müller, B., Kruse, L., & Zumbach, J. (2004). “Doing gender” in chat communication.Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  54. Kruse, L. (1978). Ökologische Perspektiven in der Allgemeinen Psychologie [Ecological perspectives in general psychology]. In C.F. Graumann (Ed.), Ökologische Perspektiven in der Psychologie [Ecological perspectives in psychology] (pp. 98–104). Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  55. Krämer, N. C. (2001). Bewegende Bewegung: Sozio-emotionale Wirkungen nonverbalen Verhaltens und deren experimentelle Untersuchung mittels Computeranimation [Moving movement: socioemotional influences of nonverbal behaviour and their experimental investigation by means of computer animation]. Lengerich, Germany: Pabst.Google Scholar
  56. LaFrance, M., & Henley, N. M. (1994). On oppression hypotheses: Or differences in nonverbal sensitivity revisited. In H. L. Radtke & H. J. Stam (Eds.), Power/gender: Social relations in theory and practice (pp. 287–311). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  57. Lorber, J., & Farrell, S. (1991). The social construction of gender.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  58. Merten, K. (1995). Inhaltsanalyse [Content analysis]. Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  59. Mulac, A. (1998). The gender-linked language effect: Do language differences really make a difference? In D. J. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication (pp. 127–153). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  60. Neumann, R., & Strack, F. (2000). Approach and avoidance: The influence of proprioceptive and exteroceptive cues on encoding of affective information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 ,39–48.Google Scholar
  61. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning.Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  62. Pasero, U., & Braun, F. (1999). Wahrnehmung und Herstellung von Geschlecht-Perceiving and performing gender.Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  63. Pauen, S., & Träuble, B. (2002, April). Causal attribution of animate motion in 7-months-olds.Paper presented at themeeting of the International Conference on Infant Studies, Toronto, ON, Canada.Google Scholar
  64. Ridgeway, C. L (1992). Introduction: Gender and the role of interaction in inequality. In C. L. Ridgeway (Ed.), Gender, interaction, and inequality (pp. IX-XVI). Heidelberg,Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  65. Ridgeway, C. L. (1997). Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality. Considering employment. American Sociological Review, 62 ,218–235.Google Scholar
  66. Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57 ,637–656.Google Scholar
  67. Rosenthal, R., & DePaulo, B. (1979). Sex differences in eavesdropping on nonverbal cues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 ,273–285.Google Scholar
  68. Rudman, L.A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 56 ,743–762.Google Scholar
  69. Strand, E. A. (1999). Gender perception influences speech processing. In U. Pasero & F. Braun (Eds.), Wahrnehmung und Herstellung von Geschlecht-Perceiving and performing gender (pp. 127–136). Opladen,Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  70. Thimm, C., Koch, S. C., & Schey, S. (2002). Communicating gendered professional identity: Competence, cooperation, and conflict in the workplace. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), Handbook of gender and language (pp. 528–549). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  71. Todd, P. M., Barett, C. H., Blythe, P. W., & Miller, G. F. (2002). Accurate judgments of intention from motion cues alone.Manuscript submitted for publication. von Laban, R., & Laurence, F. C. (1974). Effort: Economy in body movement.Boston: Plays. Original work published 1947.Google Scholar
  72. Wallbott, H. G. (1990). Mimik im Kontext: Die Bedeutung verschiedener Informations-komponenten f ür das Erkennen von Emotionen.[Mimic in context: The significance of different information sources for recognizing emotions.] Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  73. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1 ,125–151.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sabine C. Koch
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations