Gender and Dyadic Perceptions of Communication Style_Does Reciprocation Matter

8/6/2019 Gender and Dyadic Perceptions of Communication Style_Does Reciprocation Matter

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gender-and-dyadic-perceptions-of-communication-styledoes-reciprocation-matter 1/10



D. _ 2, Jan-2011'-- ~ - 1_,

ender and Dyadic Perceptions of Comm urtication Style: DocsReeiprueatieu Mean More?'

S .V"S aly ou aray a n il,""Villiay KUDlar Chaglloti*';'

\D5tr$ctLtcn !turc conce rn inggender and communicarion~tyl.~is sp arse an d m ixed inits results.:. man oth er sid e, co rn rn un icatio n sty le an d in terp erso nal a ttra ctio n h ave arelatlonsbip

-5" theerericelly well-established. With an assumption that iruerpersonal attraetion_ ld he seen as ,aIuncticn ol' reciprocation in dyads, mls study tried te find inhere tireR~ .. igmfic ilnt diftcrenlCet!l1n ! .heccrrnnunlearion s ty le di fferencesbetween one's sel f-~ anti his report of [he other individual in the dyad; in .dyads with andwithoutrecipmuition. Also, gender differences in self-reported cmnmunication styles, and per-

'm c.ommLlnicat.ionstyles of most liked fi"iendsis presented. Result'S indicatl! thal~ IDa)' not be as cT~tic;;!las may he assumed.

·~"'[JlJ'ds GCfld~r differences, O.lmmlJllicatlon ~tyle.,Reeip:rocm.imt,Oy a d LCper cept ions .•~'5mlaJ attraction, Ind ividual dilffcrcnccs

~:C:1lrnon.on (1981) suggested that any effort In estahli~hing 11Sil ippon for theory of interper-

~icatLon must. deal wi t i l fum!amet'ltal d Jffcrences between sexes, Pew but ~rec:ific:.::ru:Isignificant gender differences in variables such as self-disclosure (Colby. 1973).

interac t ion(/I.rgy le , I . a ll j e c& Cook. L968) andnonverbal com mun lc atic n (M ehr ab ia n,r which are encompassed by Nonon'sconceptualizatiol1 of a generic eommunication£'! w hit h came late!'. Eakins & E aki as (19711) once pointed out "I n our society, 1 1

_,:;:;der matters ve ry much, for to a great extent,It detenn iues how others act and react" __ •dc lyheld notion that gender differences do exist That cornmunicatum styles goneti-

:liofvarh. 1g95) also tends [0 support the hypotheses thai diflcrcnccs are not by.;ill those differences really exist, in a much transfonned society as we are'?

~ i! :J !C :moulded by sociolo g ical system s asIn uc 11as by the genetic system isUll < IG Uted.~ ·ulc. d( ;. 'Vci<>pingheory needs IO account for thechanges in tbe social system. For

::.;r";.t studies have found that in Indian society, male children are more valued than~::: _ Jtis alS0 fo un d th atthey are soci al [zed in di ITere!'li ways, Wh e n sue hgender 1"0les: ~s1£. thete ought to be gender differences manifesting in behaviours. cornrnuniea-sorrs. Stlciaii.zaiion PI'OCiI!SS, far example .. emphasizes modesty and adaptation fo r

.~ teaches malt: children to be more aggressive. assertive, superior and irtdepcn-

-6; Xanda. 1976}. Rao & . R1l0 (1996) chserved 'Although tremendous changes areInd.ia"they have left IDe inst itut ion of tinnily untouched. People are s,t ill tradhlonalaceepred egalitarian relailons in Jamily', Recent findings too seemed to suppmt

'l.h2! the secial system in India has not changed .~ignifie.tl ruly. Thus on one hand, it~ of'Cemmeree, OsmanillUn ]YC,,~jy, Hyderabad.

~_-= -_aim".GITAM Unive rs it y, Hyderabad,



rnL..~2...L_~~ Management OOlwerg,en

seems reasonable to expect gender differences in communieation to be retained a:;~]C~ werpresen ted 1111tc ra ture .Ol~ t ile o th er h and.Ihel<:x:ellt o f s ,o da l e ll a ng cthet cart c~are asIgn! fi~tc ha ng e. inhidividual b eh av io ur is n ot w ell lh eo ~l.z ed .It 15 thus reas .0n~bleW'S?~,G~llateon a tibasis: that alter so much time, research needs further test and va lidat ion ,which IS what partthis ~mdy aims te be.

&liev'it'w of Literature '.Style essentially refers to a W~lYof do,ing things..N~non (1977!. de'~ne~ c~I'lUn~l1ka

style us the way one verbally andparaverbahy interacts to signal h?w literal me~n ,mg shmddtaken.interpreted, nUered .or understood, The i de a o f c ommumea tio nstyle lUIsexisted f? 'r lohowever. Norton is generally credhed as the first to have initiated work tow ards ;~ge!lenc~om~munlcation stv le con struct. L lte'm ture in th is d isciplin e is lim iuxl, but h asgrown 10 man y d irlions. I II the rursuit of theory building. fifldin~ me re:lal~onship bet~ 'cenIhe~nslru,ct~a~d othe~e sta blish ed v aria ble s. v alid atin g th e re su ltswith theoreticallyestabhshed re!atmnslHps I: ~COI

tinueus exercise. Surprisingly. Norton's efforts and the later research e~orl:S are more m thd ire ctio n o fHnking c ommun ic atio n sty leand pe rson il Iity. more th a~ f o c 1 J ! ;mgon the ~1I1tl~me

to Is of veri fying the e volutiona'l)' relevance of the co:nce?t Gend~1' IS m'le,amol1~ those variablesw hich needs m ore attention w irh any eonstruct stud ledIII behaviou ra l per spec ti ve .

CQl1$1d",rableliterature ha s found difference:) in communica tion style b er.v c~n mal e~anh" . .. .~\<:,.. \<._,,-,~, ....- __."".~ '·,w_l """""" cw....... '['C!<i'.t)onS1'1.'e_nassive, tending to pJay :asoeio-emotionarook in information exchange: wI1Hemales appeared to be indi.!,pendc:m. dOi' l l imm! :ana iil.~\\.--

ented in thd.l' commun1c1'lticm(Strudfbeck & Nhmn. 1956; Tyle r, i 56~ Slrodtbeck.,James.H aw kin s, 19 57 ; B en nett& Cohen. J959; Heiss, 1962; Parker. 1969). R eS icarch of theye ' .gellcmti,ol1sindicates that gender differences il l communication styles were more conven ti onM ales' co rnrn unicauv e sty les IJb vinusly len dto refleer th e traditional masculine orientation;m ales tend10 be more dominant in conversanontZil11menTliii11& West, 1975). to arguein convetsarlon, to be more relaxed while cQmnlUnicating (Mehrabian, 1972), and to he moredramatic (Coser, 1960), Females' communication styles also tend to reflect ,the t radi ti ona l t erorientation: fem ales rend to he m ore m end I)' and attentive using increased sm iles, p

nods" and p ositiv e re ac tio ns d arin geommumcatlon (Rosenfeld. 19(6). and are more openanim ated In the display of feelings 1i.11dm otions (Pederson8; Bergilo. J9(8), I I I one of hstudies. NOI1.on(198 n hinlSelffound thai communication stylesof males is predicted by nefo r preciseness, w hile forfemales it was animated style of coruraunlcation. This schoolthought has come to face harsh criticism Thath is based ina generation I~,a(in deed ex pectedsee a gender difference in every instance {Pearson. West& Turne r. 199 .5}.

In the last decade and half.the amount o f re se arc h in c ommun ic atio nstyle has droppedms(ic~I.ly_Dianne. B arb ara. an d B asm a(2005) wrote in their book •Commun icati on Highwi r(h al", .. m e ;w ay the dirlcrent acad em icdisciplines a nd p ra ct it io ne rs d ef in e' e ,omm~mic at iorem ind ed us,.0 r th e b liI1 dmen def r un g th e e lc ph ar a:it all depended on the frame0. f r ef er en ceAnd 5U, there is nor much effort tbat can be found anj'\,vhereto build arow1( jc ,onnmmica tistyle, This effort locksuno issues of gender and dyads for insights tb~~ c an be connthe past findings and ideas that canpush It further,



- 2 . Jan-2011~_~~ __ ~ ~ ~~~~ __ ...3;"...:1·,

_ '_ ,:.. _ _ '_ -C ':5

]Es srudy h ils o ne p rim aryobjec.tlVe th at w as n ot giv en atte ntio nlei in p rio rworks In this-ihll is '[ 0 idtmtify :if d ya ds w ithreeiprocation an d dyads wiIDOLl 'Lr ec ip rocat ion per ce ive

~ . .. .. ... . > < ;: :- ; " e ommun ie ati on st yl esdifien::ndyOr flat 111e null hypothes is(1 :4 .1)here is th at there is:-","~~t difference ill ho w ind ividuals In d yad s w iIb and w itheutreciprocation perceive on e

--"--'- -~nces in eommuniearion style. The Fact tbat.eommunication is aninsepm,'abJep art o fsvieur make'S th isbypotheslsworth the pursuit Any s igni fi can t difference that canlet us

uIl b .~ 'Po t: he si s i s t heo re ti ca ll y, a t l ea stpart ly, at tr ibutableIII th e recipro city o f th ed)1ld-a j;jd iU on al m ea sure . m ore o n th e n ote o f'te stin g th enotion th ar ge nd er d iffe re ne es inon : s ty l i : :migh t ex is t,another 'h y po th es is (I I2 )is formulated' lhat~hcre is no signifi •

• ...n ee tnmmles an d fem ales self-rep orted commun icstio nstyle. Anoth er hypo th e sise s tf ~lf -r l;:p o l" te d c emmun ic at ic n s ty le s in ma le -ma ledyadl male -f ema le dyad /f ema le -~ a re sign in ca ntly d iffe re nL . T his tellsU~ Ifindividuals l:Idopl di ffe rent cemrnunica t icn_ mm :racting w ith different gender. S imilar to 1-13, another hypothesis (H 4) is pro-!he p erc eiv ed e ommun ic atio n sty le sof'mma lik ed F rie nds "also d o n ot differsign] Ii·

- Ie-mete dyad/ male-female dyad/Iemale-Iemale dyad.

itUd, used Norton's operationalizations of communication slyle construct. This in-~ l es of cornmunlcaticn namely animated, attentive. ccntentions. dominant. dra-

~ ". impre ssio n-le av lu g,open, precise, and relaxed. Another va ri ab le commun ica to r,;iropped from ihe study,

easuresaad Meth9doiogyw:in.Jll ts .". 'CI 'e-tuderus of IIb usin ess m an ag emen t in stitu tio n. T he ywere all volunteers_ T he} ' "\I,i'e 'rcssured of co nfid entIality o f the repo rts, In all, 9 7 stud ents to ok p art In. wnich 41were female and 55 were male ..

- 's Cemmunlcator Style Measure(19g3) has been a standard-instrum enr used Iar athwry building in this discipline, with )luitIblc modif ications as the Sl~ld)' requires.

also made use ota slightly modified version ofthe same, \"l\1ilc the Instrument is~ fur taH e< :tiflg self-repo rtso rccmmunicarien style, Ih e m od ified version . has an~·l.OnI[ ,)fgiving, a report of !he perceived communication style of lhe 'most liked~. prcvisation w as particularly usefulin constructing d ya ds. E ac h c omple te dqllcs-

_ _~_<n~ iii. un it o f a na ly sis<l:td iffe re nt le ve ls_ 111e re lia bility o f th ei l15tTUJ11cn( 100wasth e m edif ic atio n . Ch ro !1ba ch 's a lp h a0 r 0.347 lnd i eated goodreli<,tbiHry,

_ : - :1dil IDentalleve1 .th ese se If re po rtscould he LL~ d to tesL if lhe r e are al ly gender~ arrmm.lldca tio llstyle (H 2). In de pe nd en t samp le s r-te st \';'1lSuse d fo r th is, 'S in celh~~ I)" 1;" person in t h e -dyad is also captured, 1110difference between eomrnunication

~joJt of other individual's gender could 2115,0 be tested tH J). T hiswas done usinga0"'-:\ since th ere a re fo ur p ossib le d ya dic .eombinaiions (male~maleJfem<lte-temalei

e -reme le ) ..F em ale -m ale a nd M ale -fema le c om bin atio ns h eldto he treated differ-,.,.............edetes 10 se e if fema le s a do pt d iffe rem c ommun ic atio nstyle while lnreract-

1 ! J l dlice versa. S in c e th e reis also a report on t he pe rce ivedcommunicaticn styled fu en rl'. te stin g if l 1H :TcW ~ a difference in communication s t y ! t =observed by

as a function of thegender of the Qther'ind i idual in the d ya d (H4).



............_~ ~~ ~_Managem9nt Conver,gence '

More critically, when there were two respondents in the sample who responded on!.: 11 .11 -

other as the 'most i~kedfrLend·. it became a dyad with reciprocation. Reciprocation is definedhere as an aet of returning the ,tavour o rbeing chosen as someone's most liked friend. wlthoetthe kn.owl.edge or the bolng chosen .. Since participants were all volunteers, these dyads werefreely formed and 'V1 . . . .ere not due 10 [wy experimerual ecnditions. Hence it i~ reasonable to assumethat reciprccatlen is an indicator of strong interpersonal attraction (FO' more on this. sec Ncrton& rcU~grew. 1977~ Street, Jr. . 1988). From the entire pool of part ic ipants there were J6 dyadswith reciprocation. That aeccunts for :n participants' responses. All other responses were treatedas unique dYiilds without recipreemlon, From this data, th e difference between self-reportedcommunication style. and 111 . 0 s tl ik ed f ri end 's perceived cornmunicatirrn style was calculated.Also. variable reciprceation' \ . l , i81.S coded into tile dataas 'Yes' for caseswith reciprocation. and'No' for others. This is . to test the first hypothesis (HI); to see if the individuals in dyads withreciprocatlon perceive th em se lv es a ndotherssignifieantly d if fe ren tly comparedto Individuals indyads w ithou t r ec ip ro ca tio n,lndependent samples r-iest w as used here. .

Analysis an d ResultsTable 1 indicates the gender differences in self-reported communication style. As can be

observed from the tahle there is no significan: difference berwecn male anti female participants'comrnunication style. Nul! hypothesis Ibr fJ2 cannot be rejected,

"IablaI: Geuder Diffefcnce;s in Sclf-RcPlJrtm:l O.nnTnllJDIutioll Sty~e-s

N MeaD Std. Dev~{ltiou. t p

Animated Female 42 I 3.4161 1.0]763 .88& .3+8Male 55 3...1-]86 0.91355

Atlenti v B Female I 4.2 j J.5298 O.7}::!94 .754 .387Male 5 .5 JA56C) 0.91833

Ccntenttous, Female 42 2.9l67 0,93813 1.082 .301M<llc 55

I 3.0273 '-08512

Dominant Female 42 3.2024 0.91605, .413 -,,)J__.

Male 55 3_0807 0.91089 I

Dramatic Female 42 2.85Y 0.73093 2.687 , l 04Male 55 3,~774 ' 1 ,035l9

Friendly Female 42 3.7:26J 0.82973 ,332 .566Male 55 3.7227 0.9473 I

lmpl.enving Female 42 3.5298 O.91~32 .ois .893Ntale 5 5 :~.g592 0.93164

Precise Female 42 3..4J67 0.80 142 .on .789Male 55 3.3615 0..85623

Open Female 4~ 2_9583, 0.80758 3.376 .069Male 55 3..041 1. t537S-

Relaxed Female 42 3.0417 0.76493 ,6.84 AlMale 55 3.0::Sl 1.05172



D- 2 , Jan-2011._~__ ~~_~ ~~ __ ~ __ 5""""

Y ; eo:: !1l1diea tes thetlifferenees i .L1Self-reponed comnum Iw l 10nMy le by the gender com -in dyads,. A sIC<l.Il be seen. there is no :si),,'1"lificamdifference in cornrnunlcatlon styles

- -, mdividalals whenlnteraeting with oth~rr. of different gender. Null hypothesisHJ~ ~eCl.t;d. It indicates that any differences one may Ilnd here could be by chance, This.

e: .; agalnsr the conventional w isdom . This is no conclusion fortJ1emy. but a test that may_ d on e in d iffere nt settin gsto se e how [ he r es ult s v a!') '.

Tabf.!! 2: Di ff er encC li , i llseU'rcport011 C"ommun icH.UoB s t) "1c b 'r Dyad. s,. ,

I:

Surn ofd f

Meanf Sig.

Squares S QlUI re

II

irnm:ed Between Groups . 1..15& 3 .3.86 _i t ·I I .746.Wi tl 'l ln Groups. 87.37 93 .939

I' Total 88.518 96I.hvl! Between Groups 1.333 ' 3 .44·1 .623 .602

Within Groups 66,359 93 .714-Total 67.691 9 6

's...~tious.

Between Groups {).569 3 , . 19 .178 .911

.Within Groups 9'9.389 93 I,Ob9'Tow] 99 ..959 lJ 6 .

~imlln Reh l t . ieen Groups 1.576 3 .525 ,6]6 . 6

Within Groups 77.9R(; 93 .839,.

Total 79.562 96J~alk 'Between Groups 6.089 3 2.03 1-486 .065

Witbin Groups 75.946 93 .iH7Toml 82.036 96

"

I

;~~. Between Groups 2.339 3 .78 . 9 7 5 ..lOg

Within GI'OU~S 74.347 93 1 .799Total

,

76.686 9 6I

'~'ing Berween Gro ups 5,2:55 3 l.752 2.076 .109Withrn:,Gm~lps 78..474 93 ,844Total 8J./2Sl %

.':-.&twe8n Groups [,977 3 .659 .958 A!6~Vrrh:rrl Groups 64,017 93 .688

TmaJ 65.995 9 6-Between Groups 6.382 3 L.r27 2,141 .J

Wjtj]j.n Groups 92.406 ( ) 3 .994Total 9X.787 YO

:;-~-d Between Groups 4349 3 1,45 1.699 . t7JWithin Groups 79.377 tl3 .8541Tot.al 81.726 9 6



l . . "" '6 """ 'b . ~ .Management Convergence

As C.fII1be seen from Table 3 here. there is no significant differel'lc,c ill how individuper ce iv ed th eirmO I S tliked friend 's communlcation style as a functio n of the genderin dyads. Therefore nell hypothesis H4 also cannot be rejected, This mea nsIhat individuals dtend to se c males and females d iffe re nt ly i n dyadic r el ati on sh ip s.

Tab~e 3: Diffe,rell(:~S in pereelved eommuntcstlen style by Dyads

Sum ofdr

MellI]If ' Sig.

Sql!t3!,res SquareIAnimated Between Groups 1.012 3 ,337 .586 . 626

Within G r ou ps .B.558 91 .576Total 54,58 96

Attentive Betwe -en Group s 1.307 .J .436: ,677 .568Withl l'i Groups 59.819 93 .643Tota1 61 . 1 26 9 6

Co n ten tio us Between Groups 5.784 3 1.918 :UW;l .1l2Within Groups 87.49-1 93 ,941

Total 93.27$ 96

Domlnant Between Groups 1 ].792 3 .597 .921 .434Wtthin Groups 60.362 93 .649Total 62, l54 9 6

Dramatic Between Groups 1.17 3 . 7 2 3 .flO3 A95W n Ilin G rmlQS 83.797 93 .901Tulaj 85.967 9 6

Friendly Belwe,enG1: ' ( )LLps .5 .401 3 1.8 2.486 .065W [th in G roup s 61,352 93 .714Total 72.754 9 6

1m pl .cav jng Between Groups 0.86 3 .287 .528 .664

With in G ro up s 50.51 ] 9 .3 .543Total 51.37 [ 96,Precise Between Groups 1.46 3 ,487 .778 .509

Wi th in G ro up s 58.162 9 3 .625,I Total 59.622, 9 6 I

Open Bel\N een Group s 2,518 )1 .M3 1.178 .12]Within Groups 66.541-: 93 .7[6Total 69.076 C J6

Relaxed Between Groups 2.53 J .843 ' 1.521 .214Within G ro ups 51.572 93 ,555Total 54.102 96



o. - 2 , ,Ja.n-·2C111_~ __ ~_~ ~_~ _.__

1~,Table 4 shows that there is 110 significant difference in how individuals in dyads* -:rocariOI1and dyads WlLhout reciprocation pNce~ve the differences in their communica-

nd rheirmosa liked friend's communicetien style, This hypothesi~ does not take gen-- ~ aunt. However, IiUUhypothesis for Hl also c armot be rejected. This means thai

~-,,"-r""il was also not a matter of conccm whenit came 10 tl1(;choice of communication;:ard observed in genera l routine,

~_b ~";DUfcreOf!c in ho~' diffcrenc,es in COnUllIUlkOl((PfI styles arepcfcel\'ed. - -

Re.!:iproc,ation N Mean 8Ht tDevi:atioli

p,

-::n:nerl No I66 -.0;;:91 1.32101 .039 .844

Yes 31 - . J855 1.23148

'!"'"'m'e No 66 -.0624 1.14615 .21l .604Yr;'S 31 -.1168 L 12963

~ .,..entious No 66 +017 1.48555 .4 6 .499Yes 31 _0323 1_7603&

:Jamirum1 I No 66 .0464 1.333SJ .o:d , 8 . 1 2

Yes 31 -.DOSI t .28369

'atic No 66 , ~,O708 1 .36828 .0.0:;. .958'Yes 31 -.1 & 81 1 .13183

~ ill}' No 66 -Jl2:65 1.28537 .505 .479Yes 31 -.::!219 1.40312

--uiIVing No 66 -.02,55 1.21.594 _004 .948

Yes 31 .0606 L]90M

T~ No 66 -J)548 1,17624- ,2% .5S8Yes 3 1 ,2581 1.33773

--" . i SLe No 66 .0056 1.49073 1.594 .11, - -

Yes 31 -.1[2.9 1. '04849

~ed No, 66 ,0456 L31657 r.ns .273Yes 31 ~.O968 J)1442. ,

"" rs of this study arc in stark contrast with conventional ... isdom and previouso .rwever, this should not the first instance of such a result, Eagly & Johnson's·aIlalysis of gender and leadership styles roo revealed similar results. 1 heir hy-

'"' 3e"'l differences would be less pronouncewas eunfirmed; and further.lhey opinedse _ aeeepted viewamong th e social scientists th at m enand women are d~m~n:t1t

L n un . th ee eis :a. d ifferen ce in p re vio us fin din g'> an dC:WTerH fin din gs sh ould o n'ly-ne sign ificance that goes unnoticed, but not he con frontational and challenging



m _8 __ ~ ~ ~_Management' COInVer 'genr.e

One of the limitations 'O fthis study was that it was survey-based. Such technique Can'

only prnvideus Wilh a crude measure of'communicatlon style. Techniques that are qllalha.th cand more descriptive should be employed before a conclusion em be made about any empiri-cal findings in Ihi.sdiscipline. Theory build in g h appenswhen qualitative and quantitative d:akgo 'together. For example. de Vries et al (2009) used a lexical approach to.the study of com-numication style. Another approach could be to make lise of case diaries maintained by par-ticipants. What goes missing in this sind}! is th e contextual significance of communicationstyle, which COil ld be captured using qualitative methods.

This study made progress in one direction that was never pursued before in this field.that is to test if perceived differences i n communication style changes as a function of'reci-procity. This view helps reinforce lhe ('elatiolla1 significance of cornmun ication and contrib-utes 10 th e growing feministic perspective, Further research may be directed towards under-standing the communication style tit in dyads which could give us an insight 10 tile missing linkbetween communication style and communication competence.

ReferencesArgyle . M .,Lalljec, M .. & Coo k, M . (I9 6R ),'The ~Ur ! r : ~. ?{vi sfhi lit y 011inrrm:Jctiorl i' l a dyad'~ HumanRda ti on . 2 1 , p p.3 .I '] .Baig , T.A. (19 76), 'im li cJ ' .~Wam en P ow e« "N DW Delhi: S. C han d& Co.Coser, RoL.('960), ·[.(.f.ughftW amrmgcol leag1.J ,f ,w ' .Psych ia tr y, 23,pp. !!1-95.

Collby, p , (1973), 'Se(f:.c1isclo.nr~:A IHerarunJ. rq!,·fc.'l~' '. P~c ho lo gic al B lllle tin , 7 9.pp , 73 ·91.d e Y rie s, R .E..B ak ker-P iep er, [\ ..Siberg,R. A.. va n Gamere n, K .,&.Vlug , M. (2009 ),'The emUem tim}dlm{,!mfonofiryrifcomlmmil.."u{iol1S~lir(),t"Communication Research, 36(2), pp.178-206.D ia nn e Homer S ap hiere , B arb ar> t K ap ple r M ikk ..& B ::L SfMIbrahim DeVrie s. CW05I. 'CommuntcouonHig/miN!' .• Yarmcur h, ME :: tn te rc ua ur a! P re ss.Eakins , B .W. ,& .Eakins . R .G (19" 78 )_' S exd i,ffe re llc es i n /mmaucomlf1llfJlcalion '. HOMlIn: HOligi lto l1

~·uminCompany,Heiss, J .S. (19.()2),.Dcf!i"!i...'t!'lljimimClcyand m ale ..emale inl i. ' .1 ' (JL"t{(J1? ' ,Socsemetry, .15,p op . ~97·20~.Horvath. C W. (1995), ·BfoJowcolorrg}J1Sl!l'cmlllT11m rClJfar B !) '/ ~ '.Communication QurntcrJyA3(4t pp]Q i J - 4 0 7 _

MeMlb it1 Jl , A . ( 1971 ),'S iJel1J Mes.sa~@:\ · .Belmont, C a lifo rn ia ; W~d$wo rth ,

Meh r abian,A. (197~), 'Nurl1'erhatcGlmmmicoticm' ,Chieagn : A lrHn .cAlhL:'rran.Montgomery,B. M ..& .Norto n, R . W. (19 81 ),. ·S e,.rdijJen!f1~"5(:md.~III11·ll,Jl"ilie.~ inI.:umlm lm·c ldtiol ' lstyle' ,Commun ic ar ie n Monogr aphs. 4 8. p p.1 2j -I. 32 .Nandu, R. R. (1976). 'India» MWII(!fl·. New De lh i: V lk as P ub lish in g House ,N ew com b, T. M . (l9 61),'The.·kqlJ! '1inhmc·t:Pn')cess·.NewY~~rk: tolt. Rineil2l1t.&Winston.Norto n, R . W.,& Pett eg rew, L . S . (1 977} .'ComrlUl.l '1icCJtorsl:\'lf!us Ull l!1fIt.Cld~ll!rmim:m.t of allrtlction ',

Cemmun ic at io u Rese arc h, 4 (3 ),pp , 257-282.Parker. (i V. ( l969) , 'SeJ<·differences in s~lf JesCflptifm on the adiecuv« chltck lis:', E ducario ns] andPsychologi£ ;wJ Measurement , 29 ., pp , 99 ·113.



a D

p,

1. L. West, R . L .•.& Turner, L. (19~Jj), 'vfwdEJ' (md Cmmmmic(Jlion . (3rd ed.), Madison, WI:

BenC'bmark.c.....,·~~ D.M., & Bc.rgilo.VJ. (1968), . The correkuion Off11l0$i.df-disdrrsun: lif'l'erl((:Iries"wilh actual

-~lm!: II validir)! s t u dY ' ,Journ al o f P sy chology. 6 .8 . P 'P ·.~91-298.'\ V P•• & .Rao,N.V. (] 996), 'S ex .r ote a J1 :i tu dr u o jt:()l le ge swd en ts i n I nd ia· .In It GbadiaHy (Ed.),?!" m Indian Sudety. New Delhi: SagcPuolicatiolls.

~~:!dQ;, H. (i 966). 'Approwl'/-seekmg'm J o,fJPl"twaJ-tn,tucingfum:tiiJrt.Vvi 'Ilerlw! £iJ1d "wr'l.'~j·ball1f-m Jhe i /. r'( 1 d '.Jou rna l o f Pe rsonality and Soci alPsycho lo;gy,4, pp. 597-605.Iz, R. (1988), 'C c J i1 l1mm i c a iloU . ~iy Je _-CO/J$ide1"aliorU j01 ' measuring C(JIJlii8wncy. redpmcity.~.~1I1ion '. rn Charles H . l'a ,:rd y (E d ..), AH and hrm k for thestudy o f human commun ic atio n:

i3s and..lnstrumcnts fO foQ< s [ : f v r n g ,!HC3!lUriflg, and assessing commnnicatiou processes G r t "C ' l 1 .-_.Pt;b li sh l flg Gmup.

_k. F. L.,& M .ru l ll ,R . D . (1 95 6) . 'Sex-role J i fferenli l il iol1illjwydeJiheIY}lion:f1', Sociomeay, T9,.pp.

_ _ 1, James, R. , &. ll~wkjn. s;. C . ( 1957) ,·So:cial.~uuusillj~{f}' (JrJ1iberations'_;,-\m.c'rk;anSo eiol-_ Rr 1e\~, 22, pp, 713~7l9 .

• E .. (I 956) , ' '[hep,, 'f). '(.,A1lrJgyofJrmTum diffore~lces',New Y O l 'k :Ap p l c to n -C e n l iL u y -Q 'O f i'S ,Inc,

=:::::re'I'mOO., D.H" & West, C . (19'75), 'Sex-roles, fnlermpfioM and ,fiiel1Dt! in cr»lversatirm', 1.11B ..

e-and N. Henley (Eds.). Language and SlCX; Di ffe re nc es a nd d cm in ea ce ,Rowley, Newb!1"'1)'

Gender and Dyadic Perceptions of Communication Style_Does Reciprocation Matter

Documents

Transcript of Gender and Dyadic Perceptions of Communication Style_Does Reciprocation Matter