gender communication presentation

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

13.7: Gender Communication Summary

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 42936

• Scott T. Paynton & Laura K. Hahn with Humboldt State University Students
• Humboldt State University

In this chapter you have been exposed to the specialization of gender and communication. You learned that gender communication is “the social construction of masculinity or femininity as it aligns with designated sex at birth in a specific culture and time period. Gender identity claims individuality that may or may not be expressed outwardly, and may or may not correspond to one’s sexual anatomy” (Pettitt). It is important to remember as we discuss gender and communication that there is a difference between sex and gender. Sex refers to the biological distinctions that make us male or female. Gender is the socially constructed enactment of what it means to be a man or a woman. We are generally born as either male or female, but taught how to be men and women.

People of all identities are gendered and experience their genders in a variety of ways. As a result of how gender is manifested, many feminist, men, and other activist groups have formed for the purpose of banding together with others who understand gender in similar ways. We discussed 12 types of feminism and five different men’s groups that focus on various approaches for understanding and enacting gender. There are a variety of theories that seeks to explain how we form gender. Remember that theories are simply our best representations of something. Thus theories of gender development such as Psychodynamic theory, Social Interactionism, Social Learning theory, Cognitive Learning theory, and Standpoint theory are all attempts to explain the various ways we come to understand and enact our genders.

Like with many other specializations in the field of Communication, gender communication applies to a variety of other specializations. Interpersonal communication, organizational communication, and mass communication are specializations that are particularly ripe for exploring the impact of gender and communication. Gender communication research continues to explore gender in these contexts, thus helping redefine how gender is understood and behaved.

We explored differences in gender communication styles by looking at language, the purpose of communication, patterns of talk, and nonverbal communication. While impossible to come to a definitive conclusion, gender and communication studies generally promotes the idea that the differences in gender communication are socially learned and are thus fluid and dynamic. Males and females learn to communicate in both masculine and feminine styles and make strategic choices about which style is more effective for a given context.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

• What are some ways that your gender was communicated or taught to you by your parents? Other family members? Your school? Friends? Church?
• Do you see gendered patterns of interaction in your romantic relationships?
• Did you know there were so many/if any Men’s movements, all with different goals, before reading this chapter? What does our limited knowledge of men’s movements imply?
• What ways do you break traditional gender roles?
• Do you feel drawn to any of the types of feminisms listed in the chapter? Why or why not?
• cognitive learning
• ecofeminism
• feminine speech community
• gender communicated
• lesbian feminism
• liberal feminism
• marxist feminism
• masculine speech community
• million man march
• muted group theory
• mythopoetic
• power feminism
• pro-feminist men
• promise keepers
• psychodynamic
• psychological theories
• radical feminism
• revalorist feminism
• separatist feminism
• socialist feminism
• social learning
• speech community
• standpoint theory
• structural feminism
• symbolic interactionism
• third-wave feminism

Contributions and Affiliations

• Survey of Communication Study. Authored by : Scott T Paynton and Linda K Hahn. Provided by : Humboldt State University. Located at : en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Survey_of_Communication_Study/Preface. License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Gender Communication Theories and Analyses From Silence to Performance

• Charlotte Krolokke - University of Southern Denmark, Denmark
• Anne Scott Sorensen - University of Southern Denmark, Denmark
• Description
• Discusses contemporary research in gender and communication and expands on future directions for research.

See what’s new to this edition by selecting the Features tab on this page. Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email [email protected] . Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .

For assistance with your order: Please email us at [email protected] or connect with your SAGE representative.

SAGE 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 www.sagepub.com

“The book presents some ongoing struggles and tensions in feminist work as researchers and theorists carve niches, expand knowledge, and strive for legitimacy in the academy…This is a book to which I am going to return again and again because of its remarkable synthesis of past and present feminist communication work as well as its look toward the future. The examples throughout are vivid and compelling and the primary focus on the performance lens offers much to identity, cultural, and political communication and feminist studies. It is an excellent resource or springboard for future scholarship as well as a riveting and coherent analysis of scholarship that can challenge advanced students in feminist and communication studies courses. My congratulations to Kroløkke and Scott Sørensen for authoring such an interesting and needed book.”  

--Patrice M. Buzzanell, Purdue University

“Fresh, sophisticated, and rigorous, Gender Communication Theories and Analyses brings gender and communication studies into the ‘third wave’ of feminism and the new millennium of communication studies. Kroløkke and Scott Sørensen present an able and insightful guide to the diverse and changing ways that feminist scholars in communication, linguistics, and cultural studies have theorized and researched gender communication as dominance, identity and difference, and performance. The text’s innovative format links theory to research methodologies illustrated by case studies of face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. This book offers rich possibilities as a foundational text in advanced courses on gender and communication and as a valuable resource for researchers--we have been waiting for this book.”    

----Kristin M. Langellier, University of Maine

"Gender Communication Theories and Analyses: From Silence to Performance is an innovative analysis of contemporary feminist communication theories and methods. The book is both a thought-provoking analysis of feminist scholarship and an inspiration to innovative theorizing on gender and communication. Overall, the authors have made an invaluable contribution to ongoing feminist scholarship. Their book brings together watershed ideas on feminist theorizing and methods in an elucidating and far reaching analysis of conceptual traditions and new directions in feminist communication studies. I highly recommend this book for advanced undergraduate and graduate courses and for anyone journeying into feminist theorizing."

supplement to basic speech course

• Gender Communication Theories and Analyses applies theoretical and methodological lenses to contemporary cases, allowing readers to see gender and communcation theory work in action.
• Gender Communication Theories and Analyses presents a comprehensive introduction to particular feminist theories and methodologies.
• The text provides effective end-of-chapter cases and sample analyses that help readers see the kinds of questions and analyses that a particular theory and method bring into play.
• Gender Communication Theories and Analyses discusses contemporary research in gender and communication and expands on future directions for research.

Sample Materials & Chapters

Chapter 1. Three Waves of Feminism

Chapter 3. Feminist Communication Methodology

Chapter 5. Discoveries of Differnece and Identity

For instructors

Select a purchasing option, related products.

This title is also available on SAGE Knowledge , the ultimate social sciences online library. If your library doesn’t have access, ask your librarian to start a trial .

• Request new password
• Create a new account

Gender in Communication: A Critical Introduction

Welcome to the sage edge site for  gender in communication ,  fourth   edition.

Gender in Communication: A Critical Introduction embraces the full range of diverse gender identities and expressions to explore how gender influences communication, as well as how communication shapes our concepts of gender for the individual and for society at large. Authors Catherine Helen Palczewski, Danielle D. McGeough, and Victoria Pruin DeFrancisco equip readers with the critical analysis tools to form their own conclusions about the ever changing processes of gender in communication. This comprehensive gender communication book is the first to extensively address the roles of religion, the gendered body, single-sex education, an institutional analysis of gender construction, social construction theory, and more. The Fourth Edition has streamlined the text to make it more accessible to students without sacrificing the sophistication of the book's trademark intersectional approach.

This site features an array of free resources you can access anytime, anywhere.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge Catherine Helen Palczewski, Danielle D. McGeough, and Victoria Pruin DeFrancisco for writing an excellent text. Special thanks are also due to Integra for developing the resources on this site.

Gender Communication

Gender communication overview, chapter objectives.

After reading this chapter you should be able to:

• Understand the difference between sex and gender.
• Identify the multiplicity of feminisms.
• Discuss prominent theories used in the study of gender and communication.
• Identify the major theorists in gender and communication research.
• Identify the various methods used to study gender communication.
• Describe masculine and feminine speaking styles.
• Recognize the impact of gender on nonverbal communication.
• Know the problems with and the future directions of this area of communication studies.

Have you ever been told that you “throw like a girl,” “run like a girl,” or “fight like a girl”? Was it an insult? A compliment? We have been taught that throwing like a girl is the equivalent of throwing poorly. We use a variety of channels of communication (language, books, tv, clothing, etc.) to teach children what it means to be a “girl” or a “boy”. We limit these identities to separate categories we are not usually supposed to mix. We are taught that men are supposed to be more athletic than women, and even play in different leagues! In almost every professional sport like football, baseball, and basketball the men’s league is seen as more competitive and more popular. The company Always decided to examine the phrase “ like a girl ” and how children of different ages would respond! The results were not what you would expect!

So what happens when a girl is able to throw a 70 mile per hour fastball and win The World Series for her team? Ideas about gender are continually being challenged. Mo’ne Davis was the first girl to pitch a shutout in the Little League World Series in August 2014 and is showing everyone what it means to throw like a girl. Known as America’s favorite pastime, baseball used to be reserved for men only. Currently, Davis is being recognized because of her rare talent, but also because of her gender (Wallace). With Davis as a role model, we hope to see many more examples of transformations of traditional gender roles! For more information on Mo’ne, check out this link ! This example highlights one of the key characteristics of gender—-that it is fluid. Gender roles of a given culture are always changing.

Like in sports, people of all genders are taking on new roles in all different ways! This picture depicts females on the field during a competitive game of lacrosse at Humboldt State University in Arcata, California.

In this chapter, we want to look at the ways in which gender has been constructed in our society and the ways in which we communicate about the idea of gender.

Gender communication is a specialization of the communication field that focuses on the ways we, as gendered beings, communicate. Gender research might look at roles for people of different genders in academia, sports, media, or politics. For example, research in this area could examine the similarities and differences in the conversations that take place in the comment section of a Youtube video created by Bethany Mota verses one created by Philip DeFranco. Researchers could also look at how people of different genders have been represented throughout history. Gender communication is also a field that strives to change the way we talk about people, in order to make a more empathetic and safe space for our entire community. For example, the word “queer” used to be a slur for people who were homosexual. Now we see the LGBTQIA (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual) community has reclaimed the word queer to mean any person who is not straight. It is now a self proclamation and one that can be empowering for many people.

In this chapter, we want to make a distinction between sex and gender before providing an overview of this specialization’s areas of research, main theories and theorists, and highlights from research findings about feminine and masculine communication styles. While we are taking a communication lens to the study of gender, we need to acknowledge the contributions made by other academic disciplines such as women’s studies, linguistics, and psychology (Stephen, 2000).

As with other specializations in communication, definitions of gender abound (Gamble & Gamble; Gilbert; Howard & Hollander; Lorber; Vannoy). Ivy and Backlund define gender communication as, ‘ “communication about and between men and women”’ (4). Central to this definition are the terms about and between, and men and women. About addresses the attention this specialization pays to how the sexes are “discussed, referred to, or depicted, both verbally and nonverbally.” Between addresses how members of each sex communicate interpersonally with others of the same, as well as the opposite, sex (Ivy & Backlund 4). We find this problematic because it limits the discussion about gender to only men and women. For our purposes, we will be adapting the Ivy and Backlund definition and instead using the definition: communication about and between people of all genders. This new definition is more inclusive of the large number of gender identities that are present in our community. For example gender queer, transgender, and a-gender. We will discuss and define some of these identities later in the chapter, for a more in-depth exploration of these identities, check out this article from the Huffington Post .

In our society, we use the gendered terms women and men instead of male and female. What’s the difference between these two sets of terms? One pair refers to the biological categories of male and female. The other pair, men and women, refers to what are now generally regarded as socially constructed concepts that convey the cultural ideals or values of masculinity and femininity. For our purposes, gender is, “the social construction of masculinity or femininity as it aligns with designated sex at birth in a specific culture and time period. Gender identity claims individuality that may or may not be expressed outwardly, and may or may not correspond to one’s sexual anatomy” (Pettitt). This definition is important because it discusses the separation between sex and gender as well as the idea that gender is socially constructed.

This basic difference is important, but it’s most important that you know something else about these two sets of terms. One set has fixed meaning and the other set maintains fluid or dynamic meaning. Because they refer to biological distinctions, the terms male and female are essentially fixed. That is, their meanings are generally unchanging (as concepts if not in reality, since we do live in an age when it’s medically possible to change sexes). Conversely, because they are social constructions, the meanings of the gendered terms masculine and feminine are dynamic or fluid. Why? Because their meanings are open to interpretation: Different people give them different meanings. Sometimes, even the same person might interpret these terms differently over time. For example, as a teenager a girl may portray her femininity by wearing make-up. Eventually, she may decide to forego this traditional display of femininity because her sense of herself as a woman may no longer need the validation that a socially prescribed behavior, such as wearing make-up, provides. We use the terms fluid and dynamic to describe the social construction of gender because they will change based on the time, place, and culture a person lives in. For example, did you know that high heels were first invented for men to make them look taller? These days, if a man wears high heels, he would be described as “feminine.” This is an example of how our ideas of gender can change over time.

• Survey of Communication Study. Authored by : Scott T Paynton and Linda K Hahn. Provided by : Humboldt State University. Located at : https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Survey_of_Communication_Study/Preface . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike

Gender-neutral communication: how to do it

Adjunct Lecturer, School of Languages, Literatures, Cultures and Linguistics , Monash University

Disclosure statement

Baden Eunson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Monash University provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

The English language is loaded in many subtle ways to reflect the dominance of male hierarchies throughout history. Who says so? Well, linguists such as Robyn Lakoff and Deborah Tannen , and feminist writers such as Dale Spender for starters.

As the sexes become more equal, it becomes useful to learn how this occurs, and how to avoid perpetuating this imbalance. It gets a bit monotonous writing he/she and ridiculous saying “he slash she”. But there are much better and more creative solutions to gender-neutral expression, which, in its own small way, helps create a more level playing field for the battle of the sexes.

Let’s be clear: we’re not talking about grammatical gender, where everything takes male, female or neuter inflections, irrespective of whether the thing named is “masculine”, “feminine” or “neuter” in character.

English has ditched grammatical gender of words, along with most of grammatical case (relating to certain nouns and pronouns, and their order in a sentence: if you know “her gave the book to she” is wrong, then you already know about case) and grammatical mood (the role a verb takes in sentence: compare imperative mood (“type that letter now!”) with subjunctive mood (“if I were you, I would type it up before she arrives”).

These things make it simultaneously easier and harder to learn than other, more “inflected” languages, or languages whose word beginnings and endings change according to grammatical gender, case and mood. Simpler, because there are fewer categories to remember (Russian has six cases, German has six moods); harder, because there are fewer rules to follow and sometimes exceptions outnumber rules.

So in what ways does English err in “loading” meanings more towards the masculine end of the continuum? Consider generic nouns or titles, such as chairman, man-made, manpower, foreman, salesman and so on. Historically, these roles or associations related to men; social changes are not necessarily reflected in title changes.

Here are some other ways the English language reinforces patriarchy:

Spotlighting

Spotlighting occurs when the use of an adjective draws attention to a role adoption that challenges a gender role. For example “male nurse”, “male prostitute” or “career woman”.

Diminutivisation

Diminutivisation is where roles and names are formed by adding lower-status and/or affectionate suffixes to titles and names. For example, “actress” or “waitress”.

Differential naming

Differential naming is a common practice where males are referred to by adults’ titles, while females may be referred to by pre-adult titles. For example:

Mr Smith, the men from accounts and the girls from marketing want to see you.

Featurism is where something such as appearance is focused on in women but not in men. This trivialises and demeans the contribution of women.

Outgoing prime minister Kevin Rudd gave his farewell speech as leader of the Australian Labor Party, telling his colleagues there were no hard feelings, even for his enemies. In her farewell speech , the Prime Minister (Gillard) wore a little black dress paired with a structure collarless blazer that featured sleeves in olive green – a colour that stylists will tell you is good for her autumn colouring. Her glasses were simple but stylish in graduated tones so as not to appear too harsh. Her hair was cut in a style that suited her face and colouring. She wore statement stud earrings that flashed stylishly from under her bob. 

Some strategies to create inclusiveness

How then can we express ourselves in a more gender-neutral way? Traditional sex and gender roles have undergone dramatic transformation in recent times. This has meant that we need to think more carefully when we use gender-specific language, ensuring we have a language for all people, not just men. Some strategies for using more inclusive language are as follows:

Recast the sentence to omit the gender-specific pronoun/s:

The average student may end up spending too much of his money on software.

The average student may end up spending too much money on software.

Use imperative mood of verbs - in other words, give an order:

He or she can load the DVD.

Load the DVD.

Replace third-person pronouns with second-person pronouns:

He or she must clean up the conference room at the end of each meeting.

You must clean up the conference room at the end of each meeting.

Use plurals:

The modern plumber knows that he cannot neglect the paperwork if his business is to thrive.

Modern plumbers know that they cannot neglect the paperwork if their businesses are to thrive.

Repeat the noun:

The builder will find all the traditional lines of nails and screws, now in metric or SI. In fact, in converting from imperial measures, we have taken the opportunity to expand the product range, giving him or her more, not fewer, resources.

The builder will find all the traditional lines of nails and screws, now in metric or SI. In fact, in converting from imperial measures, we have taken the opportunity to expand the product range, giving the builder more, not fewer, resources.

Replace third-person pronouns with indefinite article (a, an) or definite article (the):

The manager or his assistant …

The manager or an assistant …

Change second-person pronouns to generic pronoun (although this can appear somewhat pompous so use sparingly):

She will need to consider her position on this.

One would need to consider one’s position on this.

Change a nominal to a verbal expression:

A person who has in his possession such prohibited substances will in fact have broken the law.

A person who possesses such prohibited substances will in fact have broken the law.

Recast restricting/spotlighting names, titles and roles:

chairman: chair, chairperson

man-made: artificial, synthetic, constructed

manpower: human resources, workforce

foreman: supervisor, team leader

salesman: sales person, representative, consultant

manhole: access hatch

shopgirl: staff member, salesperson

actress: actor

And now you’re a gender-neutral communication expert (I was going to say master but that’s loaded too , due to the sexual loading of the term mistress …).

• Communication
• English language
• Gender differences

School of Social Sciences – Public Policy and International Relations opportunities

School of Social Sciences – Human Geography opportunities

School of Social Sciences – Criminology opportunities

School of Social Sciences – Academic appointment opportunities

Partner, Senior Talent Acquisition

• Search Menu
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Why Submit?
• About Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
• About International Communication Association
• Editorial Board
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Research question and hypotheses, data sample, methodology, conclusions, about the authors.

• < Previous

Gender, Communication, and Self-Presentation in Teen Chatrooms Revisited: Have Patterns Changed?

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Sanja Kapidzic, Susan C. Herring, Gender, Communication, and Self-Presentation in Teen Chatrooms Revisited: Have Patterns Changed?, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , Volume 17, Issue 1, 1 October 2011, Pages 39–59, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01561.x

• Permissions Icon Permissions

This study evaluates empirically the proposition implicit in much recent gender and CMC research that expressions of gender distinctness among teens in online environments are becoming less frequent and less traditional. Gender preferences were analyzed in linguistic features and communication styles in synchronous text messages, along with self-presentation in user profile pictures, drawing on data from popular English-language teen chat sites collected in 2010. Significant differences were found in speech acts, message tone, and in physical stance, dress, and social distance in profile pictures that generally conform to traditional gender stereotypes. These findings are interpreted in light of previous gender and teen CMC research, adolescent development and socialization patterns, mass media representations, and trends towards media convergence in chat platforms.

During the teenage years, identity and sexuality start to play major roles in the lives of young people as they seek to define and explore who they are (Erickson, 1968). Subrahmanyam, Greenfield, and Tynes (2004) identified teenage chatrooms as a rich source of data for the study of adolescent development, in that they provide insight into the kind of unmonitored interaction to which researchers normally lack access. A study conducted in 2007 by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that of the estimated 93% of teens who used the Internet in America, nearly 20% visited chat sites, despite growing competition from instant messaging and social network sites. Multiparticipant text chat is also common in virtual worlds and online gaming environments ( Paolillo & Zelenkauskaite, in press ), some of which, such as World of Warcraft, are popular with teens. In this study, we examine teenage chat sites to identify possible gender preferences in the online communication and self-presentation strategies of young people.

The study of gender differences in computer-mediated communication (CMC) has a long history, relative to the study of CMC as a whole. As early as 1991, Selfe and Meyer reported gendered power dynamics in an asynchronous academic discussion list, with men and high-profile members of the community dominating communication, even under conditions of pseudonymity. In the early 1990s, Herring ( 1992 , 1993 , 1994 ) identified gender preferences in discourse style among adults posting messages to academic discussion lists: Women tended to use more hedges and politeness markers and manifest a more supportive attitude towards their addressees in comparison with men, who tended to make more strong assertions, violate conventional politeness norms, and adopt a more adversarial stance towards their interlocutors. These observations were supported in later studies of asynchronous CMC (e.g., Guiller & Durndell, 2006; Thompson & Murachver, 2001 ). They also resemble previously reported findings of gender differences in spoken communication (cf. Coates, 1993 ; Lakoff, 1975 ; Tannen, 1994 ), suggesting that Internet users transfer their offline communication patterns into asynchronous computer-mediated messages.

The picture for chat environments has always been less clear. Some scholars writing in the mid-1990s contended that traditional gender binaries were blurring and breaking down in synchronous chat environments such as MUDs and MOOs 1 ( Danet, 1998 ) and Internet Relay Chat ( Rodino, 1997 ), due to the greater anonymity afforded by these text-only technological environments, which renders them conducive to playful experimentation with identity. For these scholars, pseudonymous chat environments bring out the inherently fluid, performative nature of gender identity ( Butler, 1990 ), in keeping with—and possibly even accelerating—a trend toward the deconstruction of gender categories in postmodern society. Some intriguing anecdotal evidence of creative play with gender identity was indeed reported for recreational chat environments, e.g., by McRae (1996) ; however, the findings of empirical chat research mostly resemble those of previous studies. For example, Cherny (1994) found that stereotypically gendered patterns of behavior were reproduced in playful textual actions performed in a social MOO, and Herring (2003) found gendered discourse patterns in the pseudonymous Internet Relay Chat channels she studied, including teen channels, during the mid-1990s: Females smiled and laughed more, while males were more aggressive, including sexually.

More recently, empirical evidence has surfaced of some nontraditional patterns involving teenagers online. Subrahmanyam et al. (2004) found that girls were quite sexually assertive in the two teen chatrooms they studied (although Subrahmanyam, Smahel, and Greenfield [2006 ] observed that similar to offline romantic pursuits, those who identified as female online were more likely to use sexually implicit communication, whereas those identifying as male were more likely to use sexually explicit communication). In a corpus-based study of adolescent blogs, Huffaker and Calvert (2005) found no significant gender differences in frequencies of words expressing cooperation and passivity, which they had predicted females would use more of based on past gender and language research (although males used more resolute and active language, as predicted). Moreover, in a study of teenagers' Internet use, Gross (2004) found that male and female teenagers did not differ greatly in their online habits or behavior.

These last observations raise an important issue, which is that times—and technologies—have changed since the gender and CMC research conducted in the 1990s. Young people today, heirs to the benefits of the second wave of the feminist movement in the late 20th century, have been claimed to be more gender egalitarian in their interactions and androgynous in their self-presentation than previous generations ( Twenge, 1997 ). At the same time, the development of Web 2.0 technologies, with their convergence of multimodal, communicative, and collaborative features, has given rise to megasites popular with teens, such as the social network site MySpace ( boyd, 2008 ). Web-based teen chat sites, too, have taken on a new complexion, incorporating such features as asynchronous discussion forums, polls, and testimonials; ‘avatars,’ or visual representations of each user attached to their posted messages; and user profiles, in which personal information about users may be presented along with real-life photographs.

One consequence of these technological changes is that anonymity is less a feature of social media sites now than it was in the past. This raises the question of how and to what extent gender identity is expressed on such sites. Indeed, although all of the chat sites analyzed for the present study offer users the possibility of hiding their gender, most teenage users choose to identify themselves as male or female (e.g., through the choice of distinctly gendered nicknames and/or photographs). This gives researchers the possibility to examine and compare male and female communication and self-presentation strategies systematically. 2

The purpose of this study is to evaluate empirically the claim implicit in much recent gender and CMC research that expressions of gender distinctness among teens in online environments are becoming less frequent and less traditional. Discourse and content analysis methods are employed to examine gender preferences in linguistic features and communication styles in synchronous text chat messages, along with self-presentation in user profile images, drawing on data from five popular (default heterosexual) teen chat sites collected in early 2010. The findings suggest a distinction according to the nature of the linguistic and communicative features analyzed: Word choice, as well as some speech acts, appear to be determined more by the topic of conversation at hand than by the message producer's gender, but significant differences are found for the use of other speech acts (especially directive and reactive acts) and overall message tone, as well as for physical stance, dress, and social distance in profile images, which appear to function as broader, more stable signals of gender identity across topics. Where differences are found, they generally conform to traditional gender stereotypes.

These findings indicate that despite changes in technology and purported feminist advances in society over the past 20 years, traditional gender patterns in communication style and self-presentation persist in CMC, at least in heterosexual teen chat sites. We suggest that this is because the patterns are perceived by the teens who employ them to serve useful purposes. Symbolic gender differentiation via language and images aims to heighten mutual (sex-differentiated) attractiveness in teen chatrooms, in which direct physical actions are unavailable, and thus it can be read as socially facilitative (cf. Eckert, 1996 ). At the same time, expectations for what constitutes female and male attractiveness are not random; rather, they are ingrained in western society and reinforced by mass media representations ( Durham, 2008 ).

Much research has been conducted on the topic of whether males and females communicate differently and if so, at what level of communication differences are evident. Unlike in languages such as Japanese, where men and women use different forms for the personal pronouns ‘I’ and ‘you,’ or in the Romance languages, where agreement with the gender of the speaker is obligatorily marked on adjectives, gender differences in English tend to be a matter of preference rather than grammatical requirement ( Coates, 1993 ). Thus Argamon, Koppel, and Shimoni (2003) were able to train a machine-learning algorithm to identify the gender of writers of various genres of English texts with an 80% degree of accuracy, based solely on the frequency of use of grammatical function words: Female writers used more personal pronouns, while male writers used more noun determiners (articles, demonstratives, and quantifiers). The researchers explained this finding in terms of females having a more interactive, interpersonal style as compared to males, who tend to communicate more about things than about people. Relatedly, Pennebaker, Mehl, and Niederhoffer (2003) , using an automated analysis program they developed based on word frequencies (LIWC), identified significant gender differences, including in personal pronoun use, in writing samples of various print genres and speech transcripts of conversations on a diverse range of topics.

Interestingly, however, little evidence has been found of gender differences on the grammatical or word level in CMC. Guiller & Durndell, 2006 studied students' language use in computer-mediated discussion groups and found few gender differences in linguistic features, although stylistic gender differences were evident. Herring and Paolillo (2006) analyzed the frequency of the grammatical features identified by Argomon et al. (2003) in adult blogs, and found that when blog genre (personal diary vs. ‘filter’ blogs focusing on external events) was taken into account, gender differences disappeared. Herring and Paolillo suggest that it is the genre of writing, rather than the gender of the writer, that determines the extent to which lower-level grammatical features are used. They further suggest that Huffaker and Calvert's (2005) finding of few gender differences in lexical choice in teen blogs may be due to the fact that the latter's data were all of the same genre, diary blogs, in which teens of both genders wrote about the same topics: the writers' thoughts, likes and dislikes, love lives, and daily routines. Koch et al. (2005) also found few gender differences in their experimental study of gender construction in chat groups, where all the undergraduate subjects were engaged in discussing the same topic.

On the face of it, these findings might be taken to support Rodino's (1997) and Danet's (1998) claims that traditional gender binaries are breaking down in CMC, were it not for the fact that research has repeatedly found evidence of gender differences in CMC at the discourse and stylistic levels. Herring ( 1992 , 1993 , 1994 , 2003 ) found that in academic discussion groups women tend to apologize, appreciate, and thank—as well as to perceive and be upset by violations of politeness—more than men, whereas men are less likely to be concerned with politeness and more readily violate online etiquette. In Internet Relay Chat rooms, Herring (2003) observed that females tend to type representations of laughter and smiling more, while males tend to use more profanity, more sexual language, and to be more aggressive. Cherny (1994) found similar patterns in a social MOO: Females performed more affectionate textual acts such as ‘hugs,’ while males performed more violent acts such as ‘kills.’ Analogously, in asynchronous discussion groups, Guiller & Durndell, 2006 found that although male and female students were similar in their use of individual linguistic variables (with the exception of intensifiers, which more females used than males), significant gender differences were evident in their use of many stylistic variables: Males were more likely to use authoritative language and to respond negatively in interactions, while females were more likely to agree explicitly, support others, and make more personal and emotional contributions. Similarly, in an analysis of positive and negative message tone on MySpace profiles, Thelwall, Wilkinson, and Uppal (2010) found that female messages had a positive tone significantly more often than did male messages.

Thelwall et al.'s study is one of a relatively small number of studies to examine gender differences in social network sites. Sites such as Facebook have gained rapidly in popularity, including among teens, and many have incorporated synchronous chat to enhance interaction. A common characteristic of such sites is that users can create profiles and upload pictures of themselves (Ellison & boyd, 2007). A few studies have analyzed users' visual self-representations in multimodal CMC environments. Siibak (2009) studied Estonian teenagers' motivation for profile picture choice in social network sites and found that female users had a higher tendency to base their choice on looking good, whereas the motivations of males were more varied. Their results are consistent with the findings of Ellison, Heino, and Gibbs (2006) for online dating sites, which found that in written self-presentations women tended to heighten desirability by describing an idealized version of themselves. In her analysis of self-presentation on online dating sites, Whitty (2008) also found a tendency for users to present an idealized version of themselves through “glamour shots;” women more than men presented themselves with images that emphasized their attractiveness. Relatedly, Toma, Hancock, and Ellison (2008) found that users of online dating sites reported the photograph as being the least accurate feature of the user profile, implying that the pictures were edited to appear more attractive.

Except for Siibak (2009) , most studies of visual self-presentation have not focused on young people. Another exception is Scheidt (2004) , who analyzed visual self-presentation in a moderated graphical teen chat environment. She found that female avatars tended overwhelmingly to be seductively posed and partially clad, while male avatars tended to be fully covered, including hiding their eyes—which tended to look down or away from the viewer—under hair or caps. In their study of photographic self-representations of college students on MySpace, Manago, Graham, Greenfield, and Salimkhan (2008) also found a pervasiveness of sexualized female self-presentations. However, a new finding was that males in Manago et al.'s MySpace corpus also tended to present themselves in attractive, sexualized ways.

The overarching question that guides this study is: To what extent, and in what ways, are gender differences manifested in contemporary teen chat sites? We address this question by analyzing four levels of communication: microlinguistic, discourse-pragmatic, stylistic, and visual. Based on the literature surveyed in the previous section, we posit the following hypotheses:

H1: Few, if any, gender differences will be found on the level of individual word choice (microlinguistic level) in teen chatrooms. H2: Gender differences will be found on the discourse-pragmatic level. Specifically:  H2a. Boys will use language that is more assertive, resolute, and active.  H2b. Girls will use language that is more passive, cooperative, and accommodating. H3: Stylistic gender differences will be found. Specifically:  H3a. Boys' communication will tend to adopt a more flirtatious and overtly sexual tone.  H3b. Girls' communication will tend to adopt a more positive, friendly tone. H4: Gender differences will be found in self-representation in profile photographs. Specifically:  H4a. Girls more often than boys will be shown in suggestive clothing or undress.  H4b. Girls more often than boys will present seductive behavior.

The first hypothesis is based on the findings of Huffaker and Calvert (2005) , Guiller & Durndell, 2006, and Herring and Paolillo (2006) ; the second on findings by Herring ( 1992 , 1993 , 2003 ) and others; the third on findings reported by Cherny (1994) , Herring (2003) , and Thelwall et al. (2010) ; and the hypotheses about visual self-representation are based on the findings of Scheidt (2004) and Siibak (2009) . These hypotheses do not posit that a change has occurred over time (e.g., towards fewer or less traditional gender distinctions). Rather, as a heuristic, we adopt the conservative assumption that what has been found in previous studies of gender and CMC is likely still to be true for teen chat. However, the hypotheses are subject to disconfirmation, in which case, that assumption would be called into question.

The sites for analysis were chosen by first attempting to compile an exhaustive sample of English-language teen chat sites from multiple sources: a Google search for the key phrase “teenage chat,” two chat directories, and links from sites identified by the preceding searches as teenage chat sites. The 27 sites identified in this manner were subsequently narrowed down to a judgment sample based on popularity. Site popularity was defined as user frequency (individual visits per month) and identified using the website rank page www.quantcast.com . The five highest-ranked sites in the sample were selected for analysis. None of these sites specified the sexual orientation of its target population of users (e.g., they were not ‘gay’ or ‘LGBT’ forums); in the absence of such specification, the sites were assumed to be heterosexual by default. This assumption was supported by the active presence of heterosexual flirtatious interactions, and the absence of same-sex flirtatious interaction, that we observed on the sites. Three of the sites seemed to invite flirtation through the names of the chat rooms they made available (e.g., ‘singles’), whereas the other two sites seemed to be devoted to general chatting.

A sample of 1 hour of chat was collected from all five sites simultaneously in January 2010, and the first 200 messages from each were selected for analysis, excluding overt advertisements (e.g., “Are You Single? Meet cute singles now!”), for a total of 1,000 messages. All messages were coded for the demographic variable gender (male/female/NA). Gender was identified by analyzing userIDs, as well as the thematic content of messages. Messages from the userID “MizSweetGirl,” for example, were coded as female, those from “RandomBoy15” as male, and a message with the content “Bored 18/m/PA here with PICS, any one wanna hit me up????????” from the user “bonanza2142” was also coded as male. Messages from users with nongender-distinct IDs such as “dsds” were coded as NA (gender information ‘not available’) if further examination of their content did not reveal the gender of the author. Overall, 614 messages in the corpus were from male users, 339 were from female users, and the sender's gender could not be identified for 47 messages.

Three out of the five originally selected sites contained either no images apart from the site logo or had only graphical images (ranging in number from 1 to 16), while two of the chat sites supported profiles where users could upload profile pictures. For the purpose of this study, profile images from one of these sites were analyzed. Images from the other site containing profile images were considered for analysis but discarded, because the site crops images uploaded by users, such that a full analysis of those images was not possible.

The selected site has a search feature that randomly retrieves user profiles according to specified search criteria. For this study, two searches were conducted, one for female and one for male users between the ages of 16 and 19. The first 100 profile images from each search were taken as the sample for analysis. The term ‘image’ in this article refers to the box in the profile interface where photographs or other graphic representations may be uploaded by the user. Images that did not contain a photograph were not excluded, since we were also interested in knowing what proportion of users of each gender chose to represent themselves with photographs and what proportion did not. The final sample consisted of 200 profile images (100 male, 100 female). 3

The data were analyzed using discourse analysis and content analysis methods on four communicative levels: microlinguistic, discourse-pragmatic, stylistic, and visual. The methodological procedures followed for each level of analysis are described below.

Microlinguistic Features

The first analysis focused on word frequencies. All of the chat messages were analyzed using the free online version of the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) tool developed by Pennebaker, Booth, and Francis (2001) . This text analysis application, which contains a default dictionary that defines which words should be counted in the target text file, had previously been used by Pennebaker et al. (2003) to identify gender differences in language use. The online version provides automated counts of seven key linguistic features: self-references (I, me, my), social words, positive emotions, negative emotions, overall cognitive words, articles (a, an, the), and big words (=6 letters). The application was run for all the female messages and all the male messages separately for each of the five chat sites.

Discourse-Pragmatic Features

The approach adopted to analyze discourse-pragmatic features in this study was speech act analysis, which is concerned with the intended meaning or illocutionary force of utterances ( Levinson, 1983 ). All of the chat messages were manually coded by the authors according to a CMC act taxonomy developed by Herring, Das, and Penumarthy (2005) . The CMC act taxonomy is derived from Bach and Harnish's (1979) classic classification of speech acts combined with Francis and Hunston's (1992) classification scheme for acts used in spoken conversation, adapted to fit the medium of online communication and simplified for ease and reliability of coding. After coding all messages according to the 16 categories of the original taxonomy, the categories “thank” and “manage” were excluded because no messages in the data occurred in those categories, and an additional category, “summon,” was identified as being relevant to the data and added. The resulting adapted taxonomy thus consists of the following 15 CMC acts: inquire, request, direct, invite, inform, claim, desire, elaborate, accept, reject, react, repair, apologize, greet, and summon. Each message was coded for only one act; in cases where more than one act label could have applied (e.g., reject and react), the most specific applicable label was assigned (in this example, reject).

Stylistic Features

All messages were also coded for message tone, using categories adapted from Herring (2007) —aggressive, friendly, and neutral. Herring's original categories were an adaptation of Hymes' (1974) notion of “key,” which describes the tone or manner of speech. Using a grounded theory approach, we added three other categories that emerged from our data: mild negative, flirtatious, and sexual, for a total of six coding categories. Each message was coded for only one tone. In cases where more than one tone could apply, the most marked tone was assigned according to the following hierarchy: sexual = aggressive = flirtatious = friendly/mild negative = neutral.

Image Features

The profile images were coded for whether or not they contained a photograph, and those with photographs were further coded for three variables, following established methods of visual content analysis. The photographs were first coded for the variable social distance , originally identified by Hall (1966) as part of his ideas on “proxemics,” the study of how people use and perceive space. Kress and van Leeuwen (1996) applied Hall's categories of individuals' perception of the space around them as intimate, social, or public to the perceived social distance of figures in an image from the perspective of the viewer of that image. They defined six values: intimate (head only), close personal (head and shoulders), far personal (from the chest up), close social (from the knees up), far social (entire figure visible), and public (multiple figures visible).

Next, the photographs were coded for the variable behavior . Building on the observations of Goffman (1979) about the differing representations, in terms of gaze and posture, of men and women in magazine advertisements, together with Kress and van Leeuwen's (1996) observation that the gaze of a subject in an image can affect the viewer's perception of that subject, Bell (2001) formulated the variable behavior , defining its values as: offer/ideal, demand/affiliation, demand/submission, and demand/seduction. To these, we added the value: other.

Last, all photographs were coded for the variable dress . This variable was first put forward by Soley and Reid (1988) to analyze the degree to which models in advertisements were dressed, and to argue that models were wearing less in the 1980s than they had been 20 years earlier. The variable was later adopted by Lambiase (2003) in a study of the portrayal of male and female celebrities on their official Web homepages and fan sites. The values used are: demure, suggestive, partially clad, and nude. The category NA was added for images at intimate distance (head only) in which the subject's clothing (or lack thereof) was not visible.

The data were coded by two coders. To assess interrater reliability, 400 messages (all messages from two sites in the sample) were coded independently by both authors; an interrater agreement level of 80% was achieved for CMC acts and 81% for message tone. After the coded samples were discussed and all disagreements resolved, the remaining data were coded by the first author. Both authors coded 100 images (50 male and 50 female). For the 89.5% of images that were photographs, interrater agreement was 83% for the variable social distance , 94% for the variable dress , and 84% for the variable behavior . After the coded images were discussed and all disagreements were resolved, the remaining image data were coded by the first author.

Word Counts

The Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) analysis of the linguistic features of 1,000 messages reveals that the chat messages are overall high in social expression, while being low in cognitive expression, use of definite articles, and big words, compared with the measures for both formal and personal texts provided by the analysis program ( Table 1 ). No strong differences are evident between the word usage of male and female teenagers, and where differences appear in the overall values for each gender, there is considerable variability across the chat samples (see Appendix, Table A), suggesting that the frequencies of the keywords measured by LIWC are sensitive to local contextual factors such as topic of discussion. Nonetheless, boys tend to use more self-reference words, social words, articles, and big words in most of the samples. Girls, in contrast, tend to express more negative emotions and positive emotions, although the values for emotion words across the chat samples are quite variable. These trends are italicized in Table 1 .

Key linguistic features (values normalized per 1,000 words)

* reference provided by LIWC

Statistical analysis was not conducted, because the LIWC program does not favor the testing of individual messages, and messages as short as those in the sample (6.0 words on average for males, 4.8 words on average for females, and 5.5 words on average for the total chat corpus, including individuals whose gender could not be determined) do not provide enough data to allow for reliable analysis. Nor was it possible to group together all messages from each participant to provide a larger data set for LIWC, because more than 50% of participants in the sample contributed only one or two messages.

The CMC act analysis reveals that ‘inviting’ was the most frequent act in the chat messages overall, followed by ‘claiming’ and ‘reacting’ (see Appendix, Table B). All messages were normalized by individual user, to avoid users posting a large number of messages being overrepresented in the sample. Nonparametric Mann Whitney tests were conducted for each individual act. The acts ‘react’ and ‘request’ (both favored by females) achieved statistical significance, with values of p = .033 and p = .042, respectively.

Chatroom communication takes place in near-real time, and when a large number of users are present, messages scroll by quickly. Individual identity tends not to be salient in this context, especially when users are represented by pseudonymous nicknames, as was the case for the chatrooms analyzed in this study. Therefore all messages were further analyzed distinguishing between ‘messages posted by males' and ‘messages posted by females.’ Chi squares were calculated for each act individually, and a high significance was achieved for ‘invite,’ an act favored by males: x 2 (1, N = 952) = 14.43, p < . 001. Females, in contrast, tended to favor ‘react’: x 2 (1, N = 952) = 3.71, p = .054.

Because the numbers for some individual acts are small, overall gender patterns emerge more clearly when functionally related acts are grouped together into act categories. These patterns are represented graphically in Figure 1 .

CMC act categories (results normalized as percentages per gender)

These groupings show that males use more manipulative acts, while females use more reactive acts and tend to use more acts that contribute to information exchange. Chi squares calculated for each of the categories showed a significant gender difference in use of manipulative acts, x 2 (1, N = 952) = 16.54, p < . 001, and in reactive acts, x 2 (1, N = 952) = 9.61, p = .002.

Examples of act categories used more by one gender than the other are given below:

Invite (manipulative): “Any hot chicks want to get dirty a hot 15/m?? msg mee huns =)” (M)

React (reactive): “wow”; “ugh”; “wat!”; “lmao”; “omgggg” 4 (F)

Inquire (information exchange): “marionette u not a mod, r u ?” (F)

The frequency of individual CMC acts varied considerably across the five chat sites (see Appendix, Table B), suggesting that like word choice, choice of CMC act is locally conditioned to some extent by the context and topic of discussion.

Message Tone

The content analysis results for message tone also show significant gender differences. Again, all messages were normalized by individual user, to avoid users posting a large number of messages being overrepresented in the sample, and nonparametric Mann Whitney tests were conducted for each tone. Statistically significant differences were found for the use of flirtatious tone (p = .04), which was used more frequently by males, and for friendly tone (p = .002), which was adopted much more often by female users.

All messages were further analyzed using a general ‘message posted by male/message posted by female’ distinction. Similar to the previous results, the teenage boys used more aggressive and flirtatious tones, whereas the girls much more often adopted a friendly tone in their messages. Sexual message tone was used slightly more in male than in female messages (see Figure 2 ). Chi squares were calculated for each tone individually, and a high significance was achieved for flirtatious tone, x 2 (1,N = 952) = 19.46, p < . 001, friendly tone, x 2 (1,N = 952) = 27.36, p < . 001, and aggressive tone, x 2 (1,N = 952) = 7.2, p = .007.

Message tone (results normalized as percentages per gender)

Examples of the tone categories that showed gender differences or tendencies 5 are given below.

Flirtatious: “any hotties want to chat??” (M)

Friendly: “how do u feel?” (F)

Aggressive: “Wha the fuccc?” (M)

Sexual: “any girls like blackk and 9 inches?” (M)

Image Characteristics

For the last part of the analysis, 200 images from a single site were analyzed. Only 21 (10.5%) of users did not have a profile photograph: One male had a graphical (cartoon) avatar, another had a graphical representation of an alien, and 12 had only the default image provided by the site, whereas two females had cartoon avatars, one had an image that was unidentifiable, and four had the default profile image. (The default image is a featureless gray shadow of the head and shoulders of a humanoid shape, not differentiated by gender.) Overall, 14% of male users chose not to represent themselves with a photograph, as compared to 7% of female users.

The relative reticence of boys to show themselves is reflected in the social distances of the pictures that each gender chose to display. Analysis of the profiles that had photographs revealed that female users were more likely to choose images of themselves at intimate (male 1%, female 11%) and close personal (male 30%, female 52%) distances. In contrast, male users preferred far personal (male 40%, female 20%) distance by a large margin. All values were scaled from 1 to 6 and analyzed using a nonparametric Mann Whitney test, which revealed a high statistical significance for females to choose representations at a closer distance to the camera and males to choose representations that are further away (p = 001). Chi squares were calculated and showed significant gender differences in representation, x 2 (6,N = 200) = 18.12, p < . 006. These results are represented graphically in Figure 3 .

Social distance (results normalized as percentages per gender)

The behavior analysis also showed strongly gender-skewed results. The overwhelming majority of teenage girls (71%) chose to present themselves in photographs with seductive behavior—head tilted, body angled, eyes looking up or sideways at the viewer—in comparison with 28% of male users who chose to present themselves that way. Males were more likely to choose photographs of themselves depicting behavior classified as offer (looking away in the distance), demand/submission (looking down at the viewer), and demand/affiliation (looking straight at the viewer). See Figure 4 .

Behavior (results normalized as percentages per gender)

Strongly significant gender differences were found for overall behavior, x 2 (5,N = 200) = 46.94, p < . 001, as well as for specific behaviors such as seduction, x 2 (1,N = 200) = 36.98, p < . 001; submission, x 2 (1,N = 200) = 18.58, p < . 001; and offer, x 2 (1,N = 200) = 8.32, p = .004.

The last set of image analysis results concerns dress. Most of the teens tended to present themselves in demure dress, especially the boys (male 66%, female 45%). However, one-third of all girls (32%) chose suggestive dress, and 8% chose photographs in which they were partially clad, as compared to 15% of male users whose pictures showed their nude upper body. Since a male showing his upper body is not socially equivalent to a female showing her breasts, the suggestive and partially clad categories may be combined to compare more accurately across genders. Doing so still shows that more girls than boys chose photos of themselves revealingly (un)dressed, although the results do not achieve significance, x 2 (1,N = 200) = 1.7, p = .19. However, strongly significant gender differences were found for overall dress, x 2 (4,N = 200) = 27.59, p < . 001, as well as for demure dress, x 2 (1,N = 200) = 8.93, p = .003, and suggestive dress, x 2 (1,N = 200) = 26.56, p < . 001. These results are displayed in Figure 5 .

Dress (results normalized as percentages per gender)

The most common gender patterns found in the profile photographs are illustrated below: 6

Analysis of the teen chat sites reveals significant gender differences on three out of the four levels of communication analyzed. These findings are discussed below in relation to the research hypotheses.

We first predicted that few, if any, gender differences would be found on the level of individual word choice in the teen chat sites. In fact, some weak tendencies related to gender were observed, some of which are consistent with previous research (e.g., males using more articles; females expressing more emotion) and others of which are not (e.g., males using more 1 st -person pronouns). However, the results were variable across chat samples, and the chat data as a whole differ more from the formal and personal text data provided by LIWC as points of comparison than males and females in the chat differ from each other for most word categories. Overall, then, we consider H1 to be supported.

Our second hypothesis posited that differences would be found on the discourse-pragmatic level; specifically, that boys would use more assertive and active language, while girls would use language that is more cooperative and accommodating. The CMC act analysis provided support for this prediction, in that boys were found to use more manipulative acts and girls more reactive acts. Specifically, boys used more ‘invite’ acts and girls used more ‘react’ acts in the corpus as a whole. Both genders made claims (subjective assertions) about equally, and other acts were used infrequently and showed little gender difference. The act results were also quite variable across samples, suggesting that what participants in a particular chat session happened to be talking about at the time we sampled our data conditioned the choice of verbal acts, in addition to gender. Overall, however, we consider H2 to be supported.

Our third hypothesis predicted that stylistic gender differences would be found in the chat messages; specifically, that boys would tend to adopt a more flirtatious and overtly sexual tone, while girls' communication would be friendlier and less sexual. This hypothesis was strongly supported, with the exception of sexual messages, which were contributed by boys only slightly more often than by girls. However, boys were decidedly more flirtatious—a finding also supported by their higher use of ‘invite’ CMC acts—consistent with the gender norm of males as the initiators of heterosexual relations. Girls were decidedly friendlier and less flirtatious, although girls sent flirtatious messages, too, in keeping with the overall flirtatious tone of several of the chat rooms.

All of the hypotheses related to images were strongly supported. Significant gender differences were found in self-representation in profile photographs in both dress and behavior, with girls presenting themselves seductively in posture, gaze, and clothing. In contrast, boys varied little in their dress, but adopted a greater range of behaviors in their profile photos, including presenting themselves as remote (offer) and dominant (demand/submission). In addition, gender differences were found for the social distance of the subject from the viewer of the photographs, although we did not advance a hypothesis about social distance, due to the lack of previous research examining this variable in relation to gender. However, the fact that males more often showed themselves at a distance from the viewer, combined with the greater number of male profiles that contained no photo, can be interpreted in light of past research by Scheidt (2004) , which found that male avatars tended to look withdrawn—to be hiding, even, in their hair and clothes. Overall, the image findings in the present study conform well with Scheidt's earlier observations about avatars in graphical teen chat rooms.

At the same time, a not insignificant number (15%) of all male profiles depicted the user with a nude upper body. This appears to support a trend identified by Manago et al. (2008) , who in their study of MySpace profiles observed an “increasing pressure for men to display their physical attractiveness” (p. 455). Whether the number of male profile pictures that display partial nudity constitutes an “increase,” however, cannot be determined through comparison, because Manago et al. did not provide frequencies of different self-representations in their study, which was based on focus groups.

Finally, it is important to acknowledge the variation in results across the sample sites. Although our initial assumption in sampling teen chat sites was that the sites would show more similarities than differences, and chat site was not a dimension of variation in our hypotheses, the frequencies of words and CMC acts, especially, were observed to vary across the five chat sites in the sample (see Appendix, Tables A and B). In part, this is because of the different purposes the sites serve. Some sites seem to be devoted primarily to social chat, as evidenced by the larger variety and more even distribution of CMC acts in their chat rooms. Others tend to function as a starting point for private text or video chat and attract more flirtatious interactions. This is evidenced by the larger number of invitations issued and sexual and/or flirtatious tone used (by both genders) in two out of three such sites. However, the chat sample from one site that presents as a “hook-up” environment lacks these characteristics, and the interaction on one social chat site is quite flirtatious. Moreover, the “hook-up” sites do not exhibit stronger gender differences, contrary to what one might expect. For the three levels of analysis that we conducted on all five sites, the degree of gender contrast varies across sites, but not in a way that causes social chat sites to pattern together in contrast to flirtatious chat sites. Differences in the local topic of discourse, along with site purpose, need to be taken into account systematically in future research, particularly given the evidence from past research (e.g., Herring & Paolillo, 2006 ) that discourse topic can confound gender differences in online interaction.

We began by asking to what extent male and female teenagers communicate differently on contemporary, multimodal teen chat sites, and whether the extent and nature of gender differences in their communication have changed since the early findings on gender and CMC reported in the 1990s. Despite some evidence of nontraditional gendered behavior in the recent literature (e.g., females less passive: Huffaker & Calvert, 2005 ; females more sexually assertive: Subrahmanyam et al., 2004 ) or no gender differences (e.g., Gross, 2004 ), the findings of the present study are overall more in line with traditional findings than supportive of these nontraditional results. That is, young females in 2010 still tended to present themselves as emotional, friendly, good listeners (reactive), sexually available, and eager to please males (cf. Magnuson & Dundes, 2008 ), while young males appear more assertive, manipulative, initiating, and visually dominant, while at the same time more distant. Our empirical results provide some limited support for the self-reported trend in the Manago et al. (2008) study for males to present themselves in photos that emphasize their physical attractiveness, including through sexualized, seductive images. However, the female images in our data are significantly more sexualized and seductive than the male images, overall.

While these findings are not new, per se, they deserve to be reported, both to update the scholarly record and to counter the ongoing tendency for people to imagine that gender differences are continuously receding with each subsequent generation. Rather, the results of this study suggest that the phenomenon of gender differentiation occurs at multiple levels of communication and is relatively stable over time and across media. For adolescents, in particular, it serves a useful social purpose: The search for partners is an important activity in the teen years ( Smahel & Subrahmanyam, 2007 ), and symbolic gender differentiation via language and images can heighten mutual attractiveness, especially in virtual environments such as chatrooms where physical sex characteristics are not visible. More generally, teenagers awaken out of childhood to the realization that they are social and sexual creatures within a gendered society, who must learn to manifest aspects of their identity appropriately in relation to other social and sexual creatures. Eckert (1996) argues that gender identities are complementary and coconstructed within a default heterosexual marketplace, and Herring and Zelenkauskaite (2009) propose that public computer-mediated environments can function as such marketplaces. Evidence that certain gender patterns are continuously and persistently reproduced further supports the view that such patterns are socially facilitative.

At the same time, power dimensions underlie the patterns, which can be read as evidence of socialization (or performances, if one prefers) of males as dominant and in control and females as accommodating and pleasing to males (e.g., Magnuson & Dundes, 2008 ). These roles are continuously reinforced through the mass media, to which young people are exposed from an early age in the form of television, movies, advertising, and increasingly, the Internet itself (including online pornography). As regards visual presentation, girls, in particular, learn at a young age that looks matter and that they will be judged based on them ( Frederickson et al., 1998 ). They learn that they should be sexually appealing. The analysis of images from the chat site studied here suggests that female users have internalized that message and apply the mass media's simplified formula—“if you’ve got it, flaunt it” ( Durham, 2008 )—to appear attractive.

We also raised questions at the outset of the article about the communicative levels at which gender differentiation takes place in teen chat rooms. While past research has reported (not) finding evidence of gender differences for different linguistic phenomena, no previous study to our knowledge systematically examined phenomena at more than two levels of language structure and/or function. By comparing communicative levels ranging from microlinguistic (word level) to discourse-pragmatic (utterance level) to stylistic (discourse level) to visual (chat room/site level), we found support for the findings of previous research that gender differences are least in evidence at the level of individual word choice, but significantly present at the utterance and discourse levels, as well as in self-presentation style in images. Moreover, the variation across chat samples in our data suggests a reason for this discrepancy: Lower-level language features, including word choice and some speech acts, appear to be sensitive to the local topic of conversation and to vary accordingly, making them less available as signals of (global) gender identity. This is not to imply that gender does not shape word and speech act choice at all; Huffaker and Calvert (2005) found gender differences in word frequencies in teen blogs related to ‘resoluteness’ and ‘activity,’ both favoring males, and our findings include gender differences in the acts of inviting and reacting, related to flirtatious (male initiating, female responding) heterosexual interactions. A tentative generalization might be that gender signaling on lower linguistic levels depends on the extent to which the interactions involve gender-relevant activities. (Thus, for example, we would not expect gender differences in word choice in online academic discussions, consistent with Guiller & Durndell, 2006).

Finally, we asked what effects changing technological affordances are having on gender expression in multimedia, convergent media sites. Specifically, since anonymity was claimed in previous research to encourage the breakdown of traditional gendered forms of expression (e.g., Danet, 1998 ), we wondered whether the availability of photographs of users would make gender more salient. Profile pictures are a relatively new feature on chat sites, but they have been embraced by users; 89.5% of all randomly selected profiles in the present study contained a photograph of the user. While comparative historical data are lacking to determine relative degrees of salience, it is certainly the case that gender is visually salient—even emphasized—in the present study through choice of profile pictures. We found that gender identity is signaled not only through a photo-realistic depiction of a male or female person, but through stance, eye gaze, dress, and proximity to the camera, all aspects of visual presentation that users control, if only by selecting some photos over others to use as profile images. These aspects of photographic representation have as yet barely been studied for online communication; our study suggests that they are becoming increasingly important.

A limitation of this study is that the data were collected by means of cross-sectional, rather than longitudinal, sampling. A sample obtained longitudinally from a single site would provide direct evidence, rather than inferential evidence as in the present study, that change over time is (or is not) taking place. Moreover, this study was not designed to test the effect of individual chat site on any of the communicative features. Future research should be structured to control for chat site as a potentially predictive variable, for example by collecting larger samples of data and conducting multivariate statistical analyses.

The word frequency analysis was limited by the shortness of the chat messages and the fact that many participants posted only one or two messages; LIWC works best on longer textual units. An analysis of a larger corpus in which all messages by active individuals were grouped together and analyzed statistically, taking topic of discourse into account, would provide a more precise indication of the presence or absence of gender differences in word usage. Further, the profile images were obtained from a single chat site, due to limitations of our sample, which contained only one chat site with uncropped images. A sample of images from different sites would produce more generalizable results and might show cross-site variation that could yield insight. Finally, although the findings of the present study resonate with a large body of previous gender and CMC research, which lends them prima facie validity, other sites where young people communicate spontaneously online (including sites where the communication is not flirtatious, although these may be difficult to find) should be analyzed for gender, to determine the extent to which the findings of the present study are characteristic of teens' online communication patterns in general.

These limitations notwithstanding, this study's findings of gender differences in young users similar to those reported in CMC research 20 years ago, and indeed in spoken language and gender research before that, should give researchers pause. They demonstrate that CMC technologies do not make gender identity irrelevant; if anything, multimodal environments tend to make gender more salient, especially when they include graphical representations of users, as in the case of virtual worlds, social network sites, and other Web 2.0 platforms. Nor does gender appear to be receding in importance in young people's communication. Clearly it is up front and center in flirtatious interactions, which are common among teens, but it also manifests in terms of assertiveness, expression of emotion, politeness, etc. in other types of engagement, including online academic discussions (Guiller & Durndell, 2006). The claim that gender identity is deeply embedded in the human psyche and expressed largely unconsciously in human communication is not new. We recommend that future scholarship examine how the gender identities internalized by social actors work for or limit those actors in different communicative settings.

A MUD (Multiuser Dungeon or Multiuser Dimension) is a text-based virtual reality environment in which communication is via synchronous chat.

This assumes that the graphical representations and nicknames accurately represent the users' real-life genders. For discussion of this methodological point, see, e.g., Herring (2003) .

Permission was obtained from the authors' institutional review board to collect and analyze these data, which are publicly available on the Web. Nonetheless, to protect the privacy of the subjects, no names of chat sites or users are mentioned in this article.

“lmao” = laughing my ass off; “omggg” = oh, my god (‘g’s repeated for emphasis).

The other two tone categories—mild negative (e.g., “damn i have only one…” [F]) and neutral (“so I am rich” [M])—did not differ in use appreciably by gender in the corpus.

Only images from subjects whose profiles state that they are 18 or 19 years old are used in these examples. The photos are presented here without any link to the users' profiles. Although we do not believe they could be traced, as a check, we searched for the profiles of these subjects one year after data collection and found none of the same photos; all the subjects had either left the chat site and removed their profiles, or changed their profile pictures.

Argamon , S. , Koppel , M. , Fine , J. , & Shimoni , A. R. ( 2003 ). Gender, genre, and writing style in formal written texts . Text , 23 ( 3 ), 321 – 347.

Bach , K. , & Hamish , R. M. ( 1979 ). Linguistic communication and speech acts . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Bell , P. ( 2001 ). Content analysis of visual images . In T. van Leeuwen & C. Jewitt (Eds.), Handbook of visual analysis (pp. 10 – 34 ). London: Sage .

boyd , d. , ( 2008 ). Why youth heart social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life . In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, identity and digital media (pp. 119 – 142 ). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .

Butler , J. ( 1990 ). Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory . In S. Case (Ed.), Performing feminisms: Feminist critical theory and theatre (pp. 270 – 82 ). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press .

Cherny , L. ( 1994 ). Gender differences in text-based virtual reality . In M. Bucholtz , A. Liang , & L. Sutton (Eds.), Cultural performances: Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Women and Language Conference . Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group .

Coates , J. ( 1993 ). Women, men and language . London: Longman .

Danet , B. ( 1998 ). Text as mask: Gender and identity on the Internet . In S. G. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety 2.0 (pp. 129 – 158 ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .

Durham , G. M. ( 2008 ). The Lolita effect: The media sexualization of young girls and what we can do about it . Woodstock & New York, NY: The Overlook Press .

Goffman , E. ( 1979 ). Gender advertisements . London: Macmillan .

Gross , E. F. ( 2004 ). Adolescent Internet use: What we expect, what teens report . Applied Developmental Psychology , 25 , 633 – 649.

Guiller , J. , & Durndell , A. ( 2007 ). Students' linguistic behavior in online discussion groups: Does gender matter? Computers in Human Behavior , 23 ( 5 ), 2240 – 2255.

Eckert , P. ( 1996 ). Vowels and nail polish: The emergence of linguistic style in the preadolescent heterosexual marketplace . In N. Warner , J. Ahlers , L. Bilmes , M. Oliver , S. Wertheim , & M. Chen (Eds.), Gender and Belief Systems: Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Women & Language Conference (pp. 183 – 190 ). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women & Language Group .

Ellison , N. , Heino , R. , & Gibbs , J. ( 2006 ). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment . Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 11 ( 2 ), article 2. Retrieved February 17 , 2011 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/ellison.html

Erikson , E. H. ( 1968 ). Identity: Youth and crisis . Oxford, UK: Norton .

Francis , G. , & Hunston , S. ( 1992 ). Analysing everyday conversation . In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in spoken discourse analysis (pp. 1 – 34 ). London: Routledge .

Frederickson , B. L. , Roberts , T. A. , Noll , S. M. , Quinn , D. M. , & Twenge , J. M. ( 1998 ). That swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math performance . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 75 ( 1 ), 269 – 284.

Hall , E. ( 1966 ). The hidden dimension . New York: Doubleday .

Herring , S. C. ( 1992 ). Gender and participation in computer-mediated linguistic discourse . Washington, D.C.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics , doc ED345552. Retrieved March 17, 2010 from http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/herring/participation.1992.pdf

Herring , S. C. ( 1993 ). Gender and democracy in computer-mediated communication. Electronic Journal of Communication , 3 (2). Retrieved March 17, 2010 from http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/herring/ejc.txt

Herring , S. C. ( 1994 ). Politeness in computer culture: Why women thank and men flame . In M. Bucholtz , A. Liang , L. Sutton , & C. Hines (Eds.), Cultural performances: Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Women and Language Conference (pp. 278 – 294 ). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group .

Herring , S. C. ( 2003 ). Gender and power in online communication . In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp. 202 – 228 ). Oxford: Blackwell .

Herring , S. C. ( 2007 ). A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. Language@Internet, 4, article 1. Retrieved March 17, 2010 from http://www.languageatinternet.de/articles/2007/761

Herring , S. C. , & Paolillo , J. C. , ( 2006 ). Gender and genre variation in weblogs . Journal of Sociolinguistics , 10 ( 4 ), 439 – 459.

Herring , S. C. , & Zelenkauskaite , A. ( 2009 ). Symbolic capital in a virtual heterosexual market: Abbreviation and insertion in Italian iTV SMS . Written Communication , 26 ( 1 ), 5 – 31.

Herring , S. C. , Das , A. , & Penumarthy , S. ( 2005 ). CMC act taxonomy. Retrieved March 17, 2010 from http://www.slis.indiana.edu/faculty/herring/cmc.acts.html

Huffaker , D. A. , & Calvert , S. L. ( 2005 ). Gender, identity, and language use in teenage blogs . Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 10 ( 2 ). Retrieved March 17, 2010 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/huffaker.html

Hymes , D. ( 1974 ). Foundations of sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press .

Koch , S. C. , Mueller , B. , Kruse , L. , & Zumbach , J. ( 2005 ). Constructing gender in chat groups . Sex Roles , 53 (1/2), 29 – 41.

Kress , G. , & van Leeuwen , T. ( 1996 ). Reading images: The grammar of visual design . New York: Routledge .

Lakoff , R. T. ( 1975 ). Language and woman's place . NY: Harper & Row .

Lambiase , J. ( 2003 ). Codes of online sexuality: Celebrity, gender and marketing on the Web . Sexuality & Culture , 7 ( 3 ), 57 – 78.

Levinson , S. C. ( 1983 ). Pragmatics . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press .

Magnuson , M. J. , & Dundes , L. ( 2008 ). Gender differences in “social portraits” reflected in MySpace Profiles . CyberPsychology & Behavior , 11 ( 2 ), 239 – 241.

Manago , A. M. , Graham , M. B. , Greenfield , P. M. , & Salimkhan , G. ( 2008 ). Self-presentation and gender on MySpace . Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology , 29 ( 6 ), 446 – 458.

McRae , S. ( 1996 ). Coming apart at the seams: Sex, text and the virtual body . In L. Cherny & E. Weise (Eds.), Wired_women (pp. 242 – 263 ). Seattle: Seal Press .

Paolillo , J. C. , & Zelenkauskaite , A. (In press). Real-time chat . In S. C. Herring , D. Stein , & T. Virtanen (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics of computer-mediated communication . Berlin: Mouton .

Pennebaker , J. W. , Francis , M. E. , & Booth , R. J. ( 2001 ). Linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC): LIWC 2001 . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .

Pennebaker , J. W. , Mehl , M. R. , & Niederhoffer , K. G. ( 2003 ). Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves . Annual Review of Psychology , 54 ( 1 ), 547 – 577.

Pew Internet and American Life Project ( 2007 ). Teens and social media. Pew Internet and American Life Project . Retrieved March 16, 2010 from http://www.pewinternet.org//media//Files/Reports/2007/PIP_Teens_Social_Media_Final.pdf.pdf

Rodino , M. ( 1997 ). Breaking out of binaries: Reconceptualizing gender and its relationship to language in computer-mediated communication . Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 3 ( 3 ). Retrieved March 17, 2010 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue3/rodino.html

Scheidt , L. A. ( 2004 , May). Buxom girls and boys in baseball hats: Adolescent avatars in graphical chat spaces. Paper presented at the 54th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved March 17, 2010 from http://loisscheidt.com/working_papers_archive/Buxom_girls_and_boys_in_baseball_hats.pdf

Selfe , C. L. , & Meyer , P. R. ( 1991 ). Testing claims for on-line conferences . Written Communication , 8 ( 2 ), 163 – 192.

Siibak , A. ( 2009 ). Constructing the self through the photo selection: Visual impression management on social networking websites. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 3 (1), article 1. Retrieved October 15, 2010 from http://cyberpsychology.eu/view.php?cisloclanku=2009061501&article=1

Smahel , D. , & Subrahmanyam , K. ( 2007 ). “Any girls want to chat press 911:” Partner selection in monitored and unmonitored teen chat rooms . CyberPsychology & Behavior , 10 ( 3 ), 346 – 353.

Soley , L. C. , & Reid , L. N. ( 1988 ). Taking it off: Are models in magazine ads wearing less? Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly , 65 ( 4 ), 960 – 966.

Subrahmanyam , K. , Greenfield , P. M. , & Tynes , B. ( 2004 ). Constructing sexuality and identity in an online teen chat room . Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology , 25 ( 6 ), 651 – 666.

Subrahmanyam , K. , Smahel D. , & Greenfield , P. M. ( 2006 ). Connecting developmental constructions to the Internet: Identity presentation and sexual exploration in online teen chat rooms . Developmental Psychology , 42 ( 3 ), 395 – 406.

Tannen , D. ( 1994 ). Gender and discourse . New York: Oxford University Press .

Thelwall , M. , Wilkinson , D. & Uppal , S. ( 2010 ). Data mining emotion in social network communication: Gender differences in MySpace . Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 61 ( 1 ), 190 – 199.

Thomson , R. , & Murachver , T. ( 2001 ). Predicting gender from electronic discourse . British Journal of Social Psychology , 40 , 193 – 208.

Toma , C. L. , Hancock , J. T. , & Ellison , N. B. ( 2008 ). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 34 ( 8 ), 1023 – 1036.

Twenge , J. M. ( 1997 ). Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: A meta-analysis . Sex Roles , 36 , 305 – 325.

Whitty , M. T. ( 2008 ). Revealing the ‘real’ me, searching for the ‘actual‘ you: Presentations of self on an internet dating site . Computers in Human Behavior , 24 , 1707 – 1723.

Sanja Kapidzic is a Master's student in the Department of Telecommunications at Indiana University Bloomington. Her research interests are computer-mediated communication, mediated social interaction, and identity construction and self-presentation in online environments.

Address: Department of Telecommunications, 1229 East 7th St., Bloomington, IN 47405. Email: [email protected] .

Susan C. Herring is a Professor of Information Science and Adjunct Professor of Linguistics at Indiana University Bloomington. Her primary research interests are computer-mediated communication and computer-mediated discourse, especially issues of gender, genre, interaction management, methodology, multimodality, and change over time. A past editor of the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , she currently edits the online journal Language@Internet .

Address: SLIS, Wells Library LI 011, 1320 E. 10 th Street, Bloomington, IN 47405. Email: [email protected] .

Key linguistic features (LIWC)

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Advertising and Corporate Services

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1083-6101
• Copyright © 2024 International Communication Association
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Got any suggestions?

We want to hear from you! Send us a message and help improve Slidesgo

Top searches

Trending searches

solar eclipse

25 templates

palm sunday

5 templates

26 templates

14 templates

28 templates

weather report

12 templates

Gender Roles and Identity

Gender roles and identity presentation, free google slides theme and powerpoint template.

Gender roles and identity are concepts that have gained increasing importance in modern society. The idea that gender is determined by one's biological sex has been replaced by more complex, intersectional thinking which recognizes the complexity of gender identities. It's a hot topic indeed, so let's get the conversation started! Get this template and customize the contents to clarify concepts. You'll see that the various stickers and elements in all colors of the rainbow are cool and suitable for the topic, giving a nice visual touch.

Features of this template

• 100% editable and easy to modify
• 35 different slides to impress your audience
• Contains easy-to-edit graphics such as graphs, maps, tables, timelines and mockups
• Includes 500+ icons and Flaticon’s extension for customizing your slides
• Designed to be used in Google Slides and Microsoft PowerPoint
• 16:9 widescreen format suitable for all types of screens
• Includes information about fonts, colors, and credits of the resources used

How can I use the template?

Am I free to use the templates?

How to attribute?

Attribution required If you are a free user, you must attribute Slidesgo by keeping the slide where the credits appear. How to attribute?

Related posts on our blog.

How to Add, Duplicate, Move, Delete or Hide Slides in Google Slides

How to Change Layouts in PowerPoint

How to Change the Slide Size in Google Slides

Related presentations.

Premium template

Unlock this template and gain unlimited access

• Communication Gender
• Popular Categories

Powerpoint Templates

Icon Bundle

Kpi Dashboard

Professional

Business Plans

Swot Analysis

Gantt Chart

Business Proposal

Marketing Plan

Project Management

Business Case

Business Model

Cyber Security

Business PPT

Digital Marketing

Digital Transformation

Human Resources

Product Management

Artificial Intelligence

Company Profile

Acknowledgement PPT

PPT Presentation

Reports Brochures

One Page Pitch

Interview PPT

All Categories

Powerpoint Templates and Google slides for Communication Gender

Save your time and attract your audience with our fully editable ppt templates and slides..

Presenting Overview of Gender Barriers in Communication. This slide is well crafted and designed by our PowerPoint specialists. This PPT presentation is thoroughly researched by the experts, and every slide consists of appropriate content. You can add or delete the content as per your need.

Presenting Communication Gender In Powerpoint And Google Slides Cpb slide which is completely adaptable. The graphics in this PowerPoint slide showcase five stages that will help you succinctly convey the information. In addition, you can alternate the color, font size, font type, and shapes of this PPT layout according to your content. This PPT presentation can be accessed with Google Slides and is available in both standard screen and widescreen aspect ratios. It is also a useful set to elucidate topics like Communication Gender. This well-structured design can be downloaded in different formats like PDF, JPG, and PNG. So, without any delay, click on the download button now.

Presenting Communication Differences Genders Ppt Powerpoint Presentation Infographics Template Cpb slide which is completely adaptable. The graphics in this PowerPoint slide showcase four stages that will help you succinctly convey the information. In addition, you can alternate the color, font size, font type, and shapes of this PPT layout according to your content. This PPT presentation can be accessed with Google Slides and is available in both standard screen and widescreen aspect ratios. It is also a useful set to elucidate topics like Communication Differences Genders. This well structured design can be downloaded in different formats like PDF, JPG, and PNG. So, without any delay, click on the download button now.

Presenting our Gender Styles Communication Ppt Powerpoint Presentation Layouts Graphics Design Cpb PowerPoint template design. This PowerPoint slide showcases three stages. It is useful to share insightful information on Gender Styles Communication. This PPT slide can be easily accessed in standard screen and widescreen aspect ratios. It is also available in various formats like PDF, PNG, and JPG. Not only this, the PowerPoint slideshow is completely editable and you can effortlessly modify the font size, font type, and shapes according to your wish. Our PPT layout is compatible with Google Slides as well, so download and edit it as per your knowledge.

Presenting Collected Personal Credit Ppt Powerpoint Presentation Styles Model Cpb slide which is completely adaptable. The graphics in this PowerPoint slide showcase five stages that will help you succinctly convey the information. In addition, you can alternate the color, font size, font type, and shapes of this PPT layout according to your content. This PPT presentation can be accessed with Google Slides and is available in both standard screen and widescreen aspect ratios. It is also a useful set to elucidate topics like Communication Differences Genders. This well structured design can be downloaded in different formats like PDF, JPG, and PNG. So, without any delay, click on the download button now.

Presenting our Gender Styles Communication Ppt Powerpoint Presentation Images Cpb PowerPoint template design. This PowerPoint slide showcases nine stages. It is useful to share insightful information on Gender Styles Communication This PPT slide can be easily accessed in standard screen and widescreen aspect ratios. It is also available in various formats like PDF, PNG, and JPG. Not only this, the PowerPoint slideshow is completely editable and you can effortlessly modify the font size, font type, and shapes according to your wish. Our PPT layout is compatible with Google Slides as well, so download and edit it as per your knowledge.

Presenting our Gender Affect Communication Workplace In Powerpoint And Google Slides Cpb PowerPoint template design. This PowerPoint slide showcases five stages. It is useful to share insightful information on Gender Affect Communication Workplace This PPT slide can be easily accessed in standard screen and widescreen aspect ratios. It is also available in various formats like PDF, PNG, and JPG. Not only this, the PowerPoint slideshow is completely editable and you can effortlessly modify the font size, font type, and shapes according to your wish. Our PPT layout is compatible with Google Slides as well, so download and edit it as per your knowledge.

Presenting our Gender Communication Differences Workplace In Powerpoint And Google Slides Cpb PowerPoint template design. This PowerPoint slide showcases two stages. It is useful to share insightful information on Gender Communication Differences Workplace This PPT slide can be easily accessed in standard screen and widescreen aspect ratios. It is also available in various formats like PDF, PNG, and JPG. Not only this, the PowerPoint slideshow is completely editable and you can effortlessly modify the font size, font type, and shapes according to your wish. Our PPT layout is compatible with Google Slides as well, so download and edit it as per your knowledge.

Presenting communication differences between genders ppt example. This is a communication differences between genders ppt example. This is a two stage process. The stages in this process are arrows, opposition, percentage, marketing, management.

Presenting this set of slides with name - Communication Target Based On Income Gender Age Culture. This is a five stage process. The stages in this process are Communication Target, Communication Goal, Communication Objective.

Presenting Gender Communication Ppt Powerpoint Presentation Inspiration Smartart Cpb slide which is completely adaptable. The graphics in this PowerPoint slide showcase four stages that will help you succinctly convey the information. In addition, you can alternate the color, font size, font type, and shapes of this PPT layout according to your content. This PPT presentation can be accessed with Google Slides and is available in both standard screen and widescreen aspect ratios. It is also a useful set to elucidate topics like Gender Communication. This well-structured design can be downloaded in different formats like PDF, JPG, and PNG. So, without any delay, click on the download button now.

Presenting Gender Issues Communication Ppt Powerpoint Presentation Layouts Summary Cpb slide which is completely adaptable. The graphics in this PowerPoint slide showcase seven stages that will help you succinctly convey the information. In addition, you can alternate the color, font size, font type, and shapes of this PPT layout according to your content. This PPT presentation can be accessed with Google Slides and is available in both standard screen and widescreen aspect ratios. It is also a useful set to elucidate topics like Gender Issues Communication. This well-structured design can be downloaded in different formats like PDF, JPG, and PNG. So, without any delay, click on the download button now.

Presenting our Gender Communication Ppt Powerpoint Presentation Show Structure Cpb PowerPoint template design. This PowerPoint slide showcases four stages. It is useful to share insightful information on Gender Communication This PPT slide can be easily accessed in standard screen and widescreen aspect ratios. It is also available in various formats like PDF, PNG, and JPG. Not only this, the PowerPoint slideshow is completely editable and you can effortlessly modify the font size, font type, and shapes according to your wish. Our PPT layout is compatible with Google Slides as well, so download and edit it as per your knowledge.

Presenting our Gender Communication Ppt Powerpoint Presentation Inspiration Icon Cpb PowerPoint template design. This PowerPoint slide showcases four stages. It is useful to share insightful information on Gender Communication This PPT slide can be easily accessed in standard screen and widescreen aspect ratios. It is also available in various formats like PDF, PNG, and JPG. Not only this, the PowerPoint slideshow is completely editable and you can effortlessly modify the font size, font type, and shapes according to your wish. Our PPT layout is compatible with Google Slides as well, so download and edit it as per your knowledge.

Gender and Communication Within the Workplace Presentation

Various scholars have written extensively as regards to gender and language. Scholars claim that there is a difference between communication styles of women and men.

Tannen in her works You Just Don’t Understand (1990) argues that women communicate to strengthen their rapport with other members of the organization. In this sense, language is used to extend and maintain social connections.

The scholar further argues that men communicate mainly to report something or to pass certain information within the organization. In this regard, men use language to extend their domination and stamp authority in the organization.

Introduction

In the academic quarters, competing schools of thoughts have been identified since some argue that there are differences in communication while others claim there are no significant differences.

Popular articles and books about gender and communication concur with the fact that men and women behave differently in different situations (Heilman, 2004).

For instance, cultural labeling regarding gender depicts gender disparity. In other words, men are considered to be exercising an agent like communication while women are believed to be exercising communal like communication.

Research Problem

Although researchers have not studied enough regarding the effects of gender on communication, there is evidence that men try to practice asserting, governing and unenthusiastic communications.

On their part, women are known to exercise temperate, sympathetic and mutual communications.

Men attempt to exhibit high levels of visual supremacy that is closely related to power, authority and societal rank. This aspect is measured by the amount of time that an individual may perhaps maintain looking in the eyes of another individual in conservational progression.

It is also factual that men tend to ignore communications of others in organizations, not like women who are always keen to listen to people’s problems and concerns.

Men are known to issue directives that must be followed without complain. This paper will therefore discuss gendered communications in work places.

The paper tries to support the fact that women are inclined to communal communication while men are inclined to suppressive communication (Giacalone, & Riordan, 1990).

Gender Communication Review

Existing literature shows that men are likely to interrupt others during conservations, unlike women who are always keen to listen to the problems of staff members.

Such interruptions are aimed at intruding another person’s communication space in order to gain personal interests.

While in groups and in social places, men assert their authority by discussing about their professions and achievements (Friedman, 2004). Study of social interactions in places of work reveal some disparities as regards to gender communication.

Studies on social interactions confirm that women are inclined to communal communications while men are inclined to agency communications.

Men tend to portray a higher fraction of task behaviors and can directly go against another communicator while women portray positive actions in terms of social interactions.

To some extent, the actions of leaders tend to converge irrespective of gender, especially when some positions demand some values (Shackelford, Wood, & Worchel, 1996).

Forms of Gender Communication

Two meta-analytic analyses associated with communication found out that gender disparity is correlated to the expected patterns of behavior.

Women tend to be communally oriented while men are agent oriented. In this regard, female leaders in an organization tend to embrace egalitarianism meaning that their leadership style is democratic. In other words, women tend to involve other people in decision-making processes.

On the contrary, men are conservative implying that they employ autocratic styles of leadership. This system of leadership discourages involvement since the junior staff is not allowed to Participate in formulating critical policies.

Men tend to assert themselves in positions of power and try to frustrate others from ascending to power. Scholars have also confirmed that women leaders are transformational as compared to their male counterparts who are transactional.

Transformational leaders are known to mentor their staff and empower them to be effective in their lines of duties. This aspect demonstrates a sense of communality. Women in this case apply other forms of techniques in motivating the staff. They respect the culture of employees and encourage them to be innovative and creative.

On the other hand, men tend to be brutal and indifferent to the needs and sufferings of employees (Tannen, 1990). They actually apply a system of reward and punishment in motivating employees.

Features of Gender Communication

LaFrance, Hecht and Paluck (2003) suggest further that some features depicted by women show their communality. They are lovely, liberated, and socially helpful to others.

These scholars observed that there is a reasonable gender effect as regards to smiling and a little consequence regarding self-disclosure. In this regard, women tend to simile a lot and can easily give out personal information as compared to men.

Hall (2001) further concurred with LaFrance’s ideas through a study among married, college and university workers. Hall found out that women try to inspire other speakers to explain themselves by either nodding or orally buttressing other’s speech.

Mitigated language is termed as powerless by many scholars. Consequently, this shows the communality nature of women’s communication. This explains why women like involving others in their private affairs.

In an organization, employees would prefer leaders who use mitigated language to those who use other unscrupulous means. In this respect, scholars of communication observe that women tend to utilize mitigation in their leaderships. They may perhaps use some techniques such as equivocation, renouncing knowledge and adding questions to declarations.

Gender Composition Effects

Scholars have confirmed beyond doubt that gender disparities regarding communal and agent speech are consistent with labels regarding archetypal male and female actions.

However, gender roles rely on situational factors such as the communication context, including mixed or same-sex groups. Interrelationships between gender disparities in communication and gender masterpiece fundamentally replicate gender of partner effects.

This reveals that both men and women are gentle on women communicators (Hurst, 2007). A male and a female enjoy a cordial relationship as compared to same-sex communicators.

Hall concluded his study by observing that women treat each other warmly as compared to men. However, the treatment is expected to be the same in mixed-gender conversations. Furthermore, women and men disclose their information more to women than to men.

Pleasant voices and show of love in communication occur mostly in women conversations as compared to male or mixed-gender conversations.

This shows that people tend to adjust their communication depending on gender. Individuals evaluate the possible reaction of the other person and the effect of communication to him or her (Rudman, 1998).

Effects of Power on Gender Differences

Generally, men have power as compared to women. This power is sometimes legal due to the societal structure.

The society treats men differently by giving them superior roles. For instance, political, economic and social power is concentrated on the hands of men.

Politically, men control all forms of political organizations. Women are incorporated in such organizations as underdogs. Men also dominate societal wealth.

In the employment quarters, women are always mistreated because they are supposed to perform than men to be declared effective.

In management, women are considered ineffective and always depending on men for advices (Wood, 2005).

Social Structure

The society believes that women have nothing important to offer hence the education system is also gender based.

Previously, some courses were reserved for men only. Women could not be allowed to pursue some courses since they could not be employed in some sectors.

In relationships for instance, once the powerful partner interrupts another in a discussion, the weak partner withdraws from the discussion. This is also true in an organizational setting.

Individuals assigned leadership responsibilities are supposed to issue orders to the subordinates (Schein, 2001). Once they start talking, the less powerful, who are the subordinates, are supposed to listen without interrupting.

The agent form of communication portrayed by men is influenced by power and authority granted by society.

The rights and freedoms of women in organizations are usually hampered by factors such as religion, male patriarchy, social structure and culture.

In modern organizations, various feminine groups have emerged, with each advocating for diverse rights.

The modern day activism is realistic in that it focuses on achieving equality in organizations but not domination.

While men are inclined to agent form of communication, women are inclined to communal form of communication. In organizations, female leadership is characterized by mitigation.

This implies that they consult a lot as opposed to men. Due to this, female leaders are democratic. They consult other members of the organization before implementing critical policies.

On the other hand, men are autocratic. They rarely consult organizational members before introducing important policies.

Friedman, E. (2004). Issues of Gender . New York: Pearson Education.

Giacalone, R., & Riordan, C. (1990). Effect of self-presentation on perceptions and recognition in an organization. The Journal of Psychology , 124(1), 25-38.

Hall, J. (2001). Status, gender and non-verbal behavior in candid and posed photographs: A study of conversations between university employees. Sex Roles , 44(9), 677-692.

Heilman, M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology , 89(1), 416-427.

Hurst, C. (2007). Social Inequality (6th ed.) Boston: Pearson Education.

LaFrance, M., Hecht, M., & Paluck, E. (2003). The contigent smile: Meta-analysis of sex differences in smiling. Psychological Bulletin , 129(3), 305-334.

Rudman, L. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter stereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 74(1), 629-645.

Schein, V. (2001). Global loot at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management. Journal of Social Issues , 57(1), 675-688.

Shackelford, S., Wood, W., & Worchel, S. (1996). Behavioral styles and the influence of women in mixed-sex groups. Social Psychology Quarterly , 59(3), 284-293.

Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation . New York: William Morrow.

Wood, J. (2005). Gendered Lives (6th ed.). Belmont: Thomson Learning.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, August 9). Gender and Communication Within the Workplace. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gender-and-communication-within-the-workplace-2/

"Gender and Communication Within the Workplace." IvyPanda , 9 Aug. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/gender-and-communication-within-the-workplace-2/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Gender and Communication Within the Workplace'. 9 August.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Gender and Communication Within the Workplace." August 9, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gender-and-communication-within-the-workplace-2/.

1. IvyPanda . "Gender and Communication Within the Workplace." August 9, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gender-and-communication-within-the-workplace-2/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Gender and Communication Within the Workplace." August 9, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gender-and-communication-within-the-workplace-2/.

• Concepts of Factor Analysis
• Challenges for Universal Human Rights
• Role Model as a Communicator
• Why Howard Stern is an Effective Communicator
• Young Children as Communicators
• ICD10 Consult Medical Application's Critical Appraisal
• John F. Kennedy: What Made Him a Good Communicator?
• Ability to Manage Stress as the Most Important Skill of Effective Communicators
• An Environmental Communicator Profile
• Hall Stuart: Questions of Cultural Identity
• Lasswell’s Model of Communication
• Lasswell Model of Communication
• “Public Relations - Strategies and Tactics” by Wilcox
• “Working in Groups” by Engleberg
• Communication Skills Among Adolescents

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN COMMUNICATION

Aug 24, 2014

690 likes | 2.39k Views

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN COMMUNICATION. MANAGEMENT MODULE UNIVERSITY OF WESTMINSTER HELENE WESSMANN JANUARY 2002. GENDER EQUALITY. Gender Equality means accepting and valuing equally the differences between women and men and the diverse roles they play in society.

Share Presentation

• oecd tackles gender issues
• westminster helene wessmann january
• gender equality
• what management
• glass ceiling
• gender differences

Presentation Transcript

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN COMMUNICATION MANAGEMENT MODULE UNIVERSITY OF WESTMINSTER HELENE WESSMANN JANUARY 2002

GENDER EQUALITY • Gender Equality means accepting and valuing equally the differences between women and men and the diverse roles they play in society. • In other words, it means equal visibility, empowerment and participation of both sexes in all spheres of public and private life.

WHAT ARE THE GENDER DIFFERENCES IN COMMUNICATION? • Men and Women – different styles of Communication? • Verbal and Non-Verbal Gender Communication. • Gender and Power. • How to facilitate the Gender Communication Process.

MALE COMMUNICATION STYLE • Argumentative • Aggressive • Forceful • Blunt • Intense Language • Control • Individualism

FEMALE COMMUNICATION STYLE • Complex • Literate • Socio intellectual • Aesthetic value • Detailed • More Questions • Facilitate Conversation

NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATION • BODY LANGUAGE • DRESS CODE

DO DIFFERENCES IN STYLES OF COMMUNICATION RELATE TO POWER? • Women are not well enough represented in top management and political positions. • Do some well qualified women miss out on potential job opportunities due to their communication style? • Are companies and organizations well enough informed of the gender differences in communication?

WHAT MANAGEMENT CAN DO: • Understand that differences in gender communication exist. • Respect these differences, they can be used positively. • Be objective when listening. • Initiate workshops, presentations, seminars and awareness on the subject.

BIBLIOGRAPHY • Gender Definitions. Gender Center for Sustainable Development. http://wwz.wirc.mn • Gottschalk, Amy Nelson. Shuttering the Glass Ceiling-A Strategy for Survival. http://www.diversitydtg.com/articles/glass.htlm, 2002. • Payne, E. Kay. Different But Equal-Communication Between The Sexes, Westport, Praeger, 2002. • ‘When the OECD Tackles Gender Issues’, Atmosphere February 4 2001, 19.

• More by User

GENDER DIFFERENCES

GENDER DIFFERENCES. Gender Role: culturally expected behaviour for males and females. Socialization: acquisition of cultural norms, through parents, peers, school, media, etc. Children who watch more hours of TV have more stereotypical views of gender roles. GENDER DIFFERENCES.

941 views • 17 slides

Gender Differences In Learning

2. Introduction. Educating children is a difficult job. As an educator you must not only have knowledge of your subject area but also find a way to teach the subject in a way that is understandable to all students. What if you knew a child had an individual characteristic that would prevent a child from learning? In most cases you would work to make sure the child felt included or spend extra time with the student..

517 views • 19 slides

Gender Differences in Depression

Gender Differences in Depression. 2:1 ratio (female to male) for both mild &amp; severe Consistent across cultures, ages Starts at puberty or just after w/ increases in girls’ rates while boys’ stay stable Hormonal changes probably not reason

427 views • 9 slides

Gender Differences

Potential Causes for Gender Differences in Mathematical Problem Solving. Cognitive Stylemale advantage in visuospatial skills; diff. Types of psychometric tests of spatial ability, such as:three-dimensional rotation of images; judging relative distance and relative velocity of moving objects mos

436 views • 16 slides

Gender differences in exercise

Gender differences in exercise. Seyram M. Kekessie. Introduction. Running, Jogging, Walking, Weight-lifting, Press-ups…… Do women exercise more than men? Are women under stricter societal constrictions and pressure to exercise than men?

771 views • 14 slides

Gender Differences 

Gender Differences . Appreciate gender differences . FAQ. Q2 . Does behavior depend on one’s gender?

301 views • 13 slides

Gender Differences in Language

Gender Differences in Language. Elaine Rich. Speaking Behavior: Two Simple Examples. Women produce more back-channel utterances (things like “uh uh”, “I see”, and “yeah” that acknowledge the speaker but do not grab the floor).

639 views • 35 slides

Gender Differences in Communication

. Who talks more, men or women? Men talk more than women in public situations, but less at home. (Deborah Tannen). . How many words per day do women use? Men use?20,000 words per day, 7,000 words per day (International Women's Day Facts). . During conversations, men spend more time looking at t

550 views • 22 slides

Gender differences

Speech production: Gender and age differences in VOT VIU Hauptseminar: Speaker characteristics Referentin: Antonia Schulz Dozent: Prof. J. Harrington Ludwig Maximilian Universität München IPS. Gender differences. F0 F0 is higher in women (210Hz) than men (120Hz)

383 views • 15 slides

Gender Differences. Deb Hoskins Chair, Dept. of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, and Inclusive Excellence Coordinator, Center for Advancing Teaching and Learning, UW-L. &quot;Findings&quot; vs. Stereotypes. Contingency: change with new evidence

304 views • 17 slides

Gender Differences. Testing Gender Differences. Get a sheet of paper and ask yourself this question – What are some behaviors that the opposite gender gets away with that you yourself would not even attempt to try? Examples : F emales can get out of a speeding ticket by crying

568 views • 30 slides

Gender Differences. What a Great Idea!. Based on the Online Lecture found at http://nzr.mvnu.edu/faculty/trearick/english/rearick/introlit/RealEducation/gender_dif.htm.

466 views • 34 slides

Gender Differences. AGENDA November 15, 2011. Today’s Topics: Taking Care of Each Other What’s Going on in the Brain ? Gender Differences – Take Notes Gender and the Media Articles 2. Homework due NEXT CLASS: Read and Take Notes on CH 4 Lesson 3/4. Taking Care of Each Other.

389 views • 14 slides

Gender Differences in Education

Gender Differences in Education. Yuliya Tsypenyuk ELE 301 Dr. Pan. Outline of Presentation. Gender Gap in Science and Math Gender Gap in Reading and Writing Shift in Gender Gap Theories for Gender Gaps Educational Differences Possible Solutions or Interventions.

1k views • 17 slides

GENDER DIFFERENCES. . Discuss with your partner:. In what ways do males and females think and act differently? Do you think boys and girls are born different, or taught to be different? Do you think most people have set ideas (stereotypes) about male and female characteristics?.

404 views • 14 slides

Gender Differences in Education. What books do boys and girls both want to read?. Do boys read girls’ books?. Usually boys will not read girls’ books, or if they are reading them then they may just not be confessing it. Logsdon (2004). Do girls read boys’ books?.

464 views • 17 slides

C HAPTER 13. M ales and females are far more alike than different. In this chapter, we explore what science has learned about the differences. The causes are not always clear. Gender Differences. EXIT. Gender Concepts. Gender. Gender Identity. Click the buttons for more information.

1.34k views • 25 slides

GENDER DIFFERENCES. National Institute of Corrections American University Washington College of Law March 2004. Men Guard information Not inclined to share innermost thoughts and feelings Reluctant to ask for help Less verbal Aggressive, competitive, less emotional

236 views • 15 slides

Gender Differences. Created By: Heather Larson. “ Girls are made of sugar and spice and everything nice.”. “Boys are made of snakes and snails and puppy dog tails.”. There are many stereotypes within our society today, based on gender. Home Life: Chores. Females Dishes Laundry Cleaning

375 views • 21 slides

Gender Differences. Sports. What sports are associated with women? Men? Do you think boys should play on the same team as boys?. What is Title IX Legislation?.

295 views • 12 slides

Gender Differences in Business Communication

Gender Differences in Business Communication. Vlad Loitarenko Form 11A Balta School #3-collegium. The subject of my investigation. the gender differences in verbal and non-verbal communication in various kinds of business spheres. The aim of the work:.

761 views • 11 slides

Gender Differences. Independent Living. Early Childhood. All children are “relatively” androgynous before they are born Current U.S. culture (like most societies) has stereotypical assumptions about people based on gender

506 views • 28 slides