The Psychology of Gender 4th Edition

Communication 253

studied. Thus status based on expectations

states theory alone cannot explain sex differ-

ences in interaction styles.

Language. Parallels can be drawn between

powerful language and male communication

and powerless language and female commu-

nication (Kalbfleisch & Herold, 2006). If a

male talks more and uses fewer hedges and

qualifiers in an interaction with a female, we

cannot discern whether the difference is due

to sex or status. The more powerful person

is more likely to interrupt, to give directives,

to talk more in groups, and to show anger—

language often attributed to men. The less

powerful person inhibits, uses tentative and

deferential language, uses other-directed lan-

guage, displays sadness, and censors one’s re-

marks—language often attributed to women.

The meta-analytic review that showed men’s

talkativeness is due to longer durations of

talking during a conversation suggests that

dominance or status might be explanations

(Leaper & Ayres, 2007). The fact that the sex

difference in talkativeness and the sex differ-

ence in tentative language are magnified in

other-sex compared to same-sex interactions

suggests that status plays a role in this aspect

of language. One interesting way in which

status is tied to language has to do with the

way in which men and women are addressed.

See Sidebar 7.4 for a discussion of this issue

with respect to your professors.

Nonverbal Behavior. Henley (1977) was

one of the first to argue that differences in

nonverbal behavior imply power or status.

She argued that the greater social sensitivity of

women was due to their low status. She sug-

gested that women would have better decoding

skills than men and engage in some nonver-

bal behaviors more frequently than men (e.g.,

smiling) because women are in a lower-status

position in society. It is important for low-

status people to monitor the environment be-

cause other people have influence over them.

Status theory has been tested as an ex-

planation of women’s greater interpersonal

sensitivity compared to men. One study

randomly assigned college students to a

high-status (leader) or a low-status (leader’s

assistant) position in same-sex dyads and

found that high-status people were more ac-

curate in guessing their partner’s feelings

SIDEBAR 7.4:Is It Dr. X? Professor X? Or Janet?

Several studies show that college students are more likely to address male professors by titles

and female professors by first names. This isnotdue to the fact that female and male professors

request different forms of address. What are the implications of calling your professor Dr. Smith

or Janet, Dr. Jones or Jim? Several studies have shown that people associate a teacher who is re-

ferred to by a title as opposed to a first name with higher status (Stewart et al., 2003). In one of

these, college students read a transcript of a class session in which the male or female instructor

was addressed by first name or title by the students (Takiff, Sanchez, & Stewart, 2001). Students

perceived the professor as having a higher status (i.e., higher salary, more likely to have tenure)

when addressed by title rather than by first name. However, the title was associated with perceiv-

ing the female professor as less accessible to students and the male professor as more accessible

to students. Thus female professors may have to choose between status and accessibility.

M07_HELG0185_04_SE_C07.indd 253 6/21/11 8:11 AM