Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1993 12:13:41 -0600 Gender Differences in Computer-Mediated Conversations Kathleen Michel Miami University Copyright (c) 1992 by Kathleen Michel. All rights reserved. [Permission has been granted to KIDLINK to share this report with project participants.] Research suggests that females and males have different conversational styles (Tannen, 1990) and that opportunities for conversations between girls and boys in school are often limited (AAUW, 1992). These theories are based on traditional forms of communication such as face-to-face conversations. Computers and modems, however, have opened up new opportunities for communication between people normally separated by distance or social norms. The immediacy and neutrality of the computer medium have blurred the distinctions between conversing and writing as well as the social and economic barriers to communication. Now that more young people are gaining access to this form of communication in schools through projects like KIDCAFE, a computer dialogue linking kids around the world, it is important to understand how this medium affects the theories formulated on the basis of more traditional communications. To what extent are gender differences evident in computer mediated communication? Do girls and boys talk to each other more often when they have access to computer dialogues, and, just as important, do they understand each other better? Gender Differences in Conversation Tannen (1990) reveals a very different conversational style by men and women. Women, Tannen says, use conversation to make connections and establish intimacy and community, what she refers to as "rapport talk". Conversation is more cooperative than competitive, although sometimes competition is masked by apparent cooperation. Men, on the other hand, see conversation as a means of establishing status and power. Information giving, or "report talk" is one way to achieve a higher status in the conversation. "The act of giving information by definition frames one in a position of higher status, while the art of listening frames one as lower . . . but when women listen to men, they are not thinking in terms of status. Unfortunately, their attempts to reinforce connections and establish rapport . . . can be misinterpreted as casting them in a subordinate position--and are likely to be taken that way by many men" (p. 139). In simple terms, men tend to negotiate status through conflict, while women create a sense of community through "rapport" talk, a cooperative, relationship oriented conversation. Tannen cautions that these styles are not as simple as they seem: "Although it is true that many women are more comfortable using language to express rapport whereas many men are more comfortable using it for self-display, the situation is really more complicated than that, because self-display, when part of a mutual struggle, is also a kind of bonding" (p.149-50). Tannen also found the same kind of differences in young girls' and boys' conversations. In comparing conversations of sixth grade girls and boys, Tannen found that "the boys do say a bit about their friendships and about other people, but most of their talk is about things and activities and opinions about social issues . . . all the girls' talk is about friends, friendship, and feelings; they orchestrate this talk at a level of subtlety and complexity that is not seen in the sixth-grade boys' talk" (p.265). Lange (1988) found that in conversations among teenagers, girls talked very differently when there were no boys present, while boys tended to talk about the same whether they were with only other boys or with girls present. Mixed gender conversation, Tannen says, tend to be "more like men's conversation than they are like women's. So when women and men talk to each other, both make adjustments, but the women make more. Women are at a disadvantage in mixed-sex groups, because they have had less practice in conducting conversation the way it is being conducted in these groups" (p.237). The AAUW Report (1992) shows another aspect of communication between boys and girls in school--the lack of cross-sex relationships. "Positive cross-sex relationships may be more difficult to achieve than cross-race friendships or positive relationships among students with and without disabilities . . . different communication patterns of males and females can be an obstacle to effective cross-gender relationships . . . the male sex may be seen as a status position within the group. As a result, male students may choose to show their social dominance by not readily talking with females" (p. 73). Gilligan (1982) found that girls often described or defined themselves in terms of relationships; boys in terms of accomplishments. This is not because girls and women are not proud of their accomplishments, Tannen believes, but that they have been socialized to be modest. Their rapport talk also emphasizes equality to facilitate connection and intimacy. Women do boast, however, "in private, appropriately revealed in rapport talk--conversation with people she knows and trusts, who will not judge her for her pride" (p.224). Men see boasting as more necessary for public conversations, in which status is not established and so must be negotiated. Computer-mediated Communication If Tannen's theories are true, do they also apply to conversations which do not take place in a face to face situation? How might an environment in which students sit at a computer and send messages to "computer-pals" all over the world, whom they will most likely never meet in person, change the way boys and girls "talk" to each other? Electronic mail is not quite the same as speaking, yet is not the same as writing a letter and putting it in a mailbox, to arrive two or three days or a week later. E-mail bridges distances within a few minutes. Ferrara (1991) finds that "computer mediated human-to-human written discourse, an emerging hybrid variety of language, displays features of both oral and written language" (p. 23). It seems to combine some aspects of oral speech, such as direct questions, 1st and 2nd person pronouns, and yes or no questions. (Biber, 1986). People using computer mediated communication have a real and immediate audience which contributes to an oral conversational style. Based on the research of Nystrand (1987), Ferrara suggests that "characteristics of speech are due to its immediacy, evanescence, and interactive nature rather than to the fact that it is produced in the oral mode" (p.23). The written messages exchanged through electronic mail combine the characteristics of oral and written language, producing what may be described as a "written conversation." KIDCAFE users do indeed seem to be holding a conversation as much as they are writing a letter. For example, note the conversational style of this message: Hi Jason, how are you? I'am interested in skiing even though I've never gone skiing. I would love to go sometime though. Where do you ski? How long have you been skiing? I would like to hear from you again soon. Carina (message #6840, KIDCAFE log9203A) In considering how Tannen's theories, which are based on conversations, would apply to this type of computer mediated communication, I wondered how the differences in environments would affect the way boys and girls communicated. Kiesler (1984) found that electronic communication differs significantly from other types of communication such as face-to-face or telephoning, because there are fewer status and position cues with respect to social relationships. Would girls' and boys' conversational styles become more similar because of fewer social cues, or would girls still engage in "rapport talk" and boys' in "report" talk? Procedure To investigate these questions, I retrieved a random sample of two- hundred messages (from a pool of 5,000) from the KIDS-92 archives selecting the first fifty girls and first fifty boys living in the United States or attending American Department of Defense Schools overseas, for a total of 100 messages. The KIDCAFE youth dialogue is for kids 10-15 years of age with no adult postings permitted, and is part of the larger KIDS-92 project accessible from Bitnet and Internet. I separated the boys' and girls' messages and coded them according to patterns which might indicate gender differences in conversational styles. I initially looked for family, friends, and opposite sex attraction/affiliation references which would indicate "rapport talk"; and activities, boasts, and object oriented language which would indicated "report talk." I also tabulated the number of cross-gender messages and whether girls' messages became more "report-like" (references to activities and boasts) when talking to boys. As I looked for these rapport and report indicators, I noticed another emerging pattern in the messages. Girls seemed to be describing themselves in terms of their physical appearance more than boys, and I decided to code the transcripts for this type of description and decide later whether it was relevant to the study. Table 1 shows the results of this coding. Table 1. Categorization of Messages Girls Boys Category Number Percent Number Percent Cross-gender messages 11 22 12 24 Activities 28 58 30 60 Appearance 14 28 4 8 Boyfriend/Girlfriend/attraction 6 12 1 2 Friends 7 14 3 6 Boasts 3 6 5 10 Family 19 38 13 26 Ownership/Object-oriented 0 0 8 16 Explanation of Categories I coded a message once for each category; for example, if a girl mentioned playing sports, then later in the message talked about collecting rocks, the message was counted in the activity category; but only once. I counted a message in as many categories as it fit; for example, if a message included references to activities, friends, and ownership, it appears in three categories. All percentages were calculated from the total of fifty messages for each gender. The category of activities, for example, indicates that twenty-eight girls out of fifty, or fifty-six percent, mentioned activities in their messages. Cross-gender messages refer to any message addressed to a member of the other gender. Activities include hobbies (such as stamp collecting) as well as sports and other interests (such as computer games). The appearance category includes references to height, weight, and other physical features. The Boyfriend/Girlfriend/Attraction category includes any reference to having, desiring, or asking about a boyfriend or girlfriend, or referring to a member or members of the opposite sex in a manner that indicates an attraction or potential attraction. One girl, for instance, said the boys where she lived were ok, but they tried too hard. Another referred to a movie that she liked because the actor was so cute. Both of these messages met the requirements for this category. Friends include any references to having friends, wanting friends, or comments about friends. The word "friend(s) must be used in the message to qualify for this category. Boasts are classified as any statement that specifically refers to success or status, such as knowing a famous person, having a prominent family, or making the honor roll. The category of family includes any reference to family members or questions about another person's family. Ownership/Object includes references to owning an inanimate object or wanting to know what kind of objects another person has. For example, one boy wanted to know what the girl he was writing to got for Christmas. Another boy said he owns a computer. These are both object oriented statements. References to having pets was not counted as an object-oriented statement as these seemed to border on affiliation as much as ownership. Rapport talk: Friends, Family, and Attraction Based on Tannen's theories, I expected girls to have a rapport talk, which would involve talking more about friends, family, and attractions to the opposite sex (establishing affiliation and connections) than would boys. The results support this theory to some extent, but are not as strongly as I expected. Six girls mentioned boyfriends or attractions to the opposite sex, while only one boy mentioned a girlfriend. Girls also mentioned friends (fourteen percent) and family (thirty-eight percent) more often than boys, who mentioned friends in six percent of the messages and family in twenty-six percent. Here is a sample message of a girl who talked about affiliations: Dear Lyn, Hi! My name is Wendy [last name deleted] and I'm from Paterson,NJ. I am 13 years old. What kind of music do you like? Do you have a boyfriend? Do you have a best friend? What are your hobbies? Do you have any sisters or brothers? Write back!!!!!! Wendy (message #7768, KIDCAFE log9203C) Wendy seems to place strong importance on discovering what other kinds of relationships Lyn already has, which is a way of establishing affiliation through a common knowledge of the relationships a person has with others. Contrast this message from Michael to Armard: Dear Armard: I would like to know why it took so long to write to me. Some time it is hard to get ideas to what to say to people and what to ask for. I wish I was back in the states right know [sic] but I can not do so to next year because we are moving. I want to know if you have any Nolan Ryans under 1980 or 1985. And I hope you have a nice day! Your friend, Michael [last name deleted] (message #7527, KIDCAFE log9203C) Michael seemed to sense that Armard may not have known how to establish connections, because he didn't know "what to ask for." Michael seemed to see communication an exchange of some sort, whether of information or of baseball cards, not as a way of establishing intimacy by talking about relationships. Perhaps it is also this focus by girls on relationships that made them more likely than boys to describe their physical appearance. Appearance, after all, is one way people make judgements about whether they will establish connections with someone. Even though the computer environment relieves this stress of having to look "right", fourteen girls still found it important to describe their physical appearance, while only four boys did so. Eight of the fourteen girls were writing to other girls, two to boys, and one to an unspecified audience. Of the four boys' messages describing their appearance, two were to girls, one to an unspecified audience, and one to a boy. The boys' descriptions were short; the most descriptive being from Jose to Leah: "I have brown eyes and brown hair. I am 5"11" tall" (message #8126, KIDCAFE log9203E). Some of the girls, however, were more descriptive: "My skin tone is tan, I have big brown eyes . . ." (message #4856, KIDCAFE log9201C), and "I am tall; I have long curly blond-brown hair and light blue eyes" (message #6509, KIDCAFE log9202D). Report Talk: Activities, Boasting, and Object-oriented Talk Tannen's theories suggest that boys would talk mostly about activities and objects rather than relationships with people,and would use boasting as a way of establishing status. Girls, on the other hand, would not often boast, as they are socialized to be modest and to not seem better than the person they are speaking with, and would talk more about people than about activities. Results, though they favor Tannen's theories, do not strongly support them. Sixty percent of the boys talked about activities, while fifty-six percent of the girls also referred to activities in which they were involved. It seems that though girls talked more about people than boys, they also included activities as a important means of communicating information about themselves. Five boys boasted about accomplishments or status, such as Ryan's proud description of his favorite activity: My favorite thing to do is go fishing I caught my first Steelhead that is a kind of fish that is very hard to catch it weighed 13 pounds. (message #6207, KIDCAFE log9202C) Three girls also included boasts in their messages. This is a small percentage for both genders, and does not indicate that boys use boasting as an important means of establishing status in this environment. Eight boys mentioned ownership of objects, such as Lamont who writes, "I have a computer at home and I just might get a computer like the computer I'm working on right now" (message #7094, KIDCAFE log9203B). No girls mentioned ownership of objects. Ownership of objects could be viewed as boasting; it certainly seems a way of establishing status. This finding, although it is also a very small percentage, also supports Tannen's theory that males are more likely to try to establish status in a conversation while women are more likely to stress equality. Cross-gender Messages The AAUW Report (1992) suggests that in schools, girls prefer to talk to girls and boys to boys. While the messages in KIDCAFE were primarily same sex or non-specified (addressed to anyone who wished to read them), twenty-two percent of the girls wrote to boys and twenty- four percent of the boys wrote to girls. This indicates at least some willingness to converse with the other gender. Perhaps the computer environment, because there are few social barriers, makes it easier and less threatening to strike up conversations with a member of the other gender. The risks are fewer--if the other does not respond, or does not respond enthusiastically, no one need know about it, and there are thousands of other kids to write to. Perhaps boys and girls have a desire to establish friendships with the other gender, but feel strong social barriers against it. The computer environment, as noted before, has fewer social cues which would hinder communication. According to Tannen, conversations between genders tends to be more like report talk than rapport talk. If this is true, then when girls write to boys in KIDCAFE, they would talk more about activities and less about relationships, and use more boasts than when they write to other girls. Following is a breakdown of the girls messages by intended audience. All percentages refer to the percent of messages out of the total number of messages addressed to each audience. Table 2. Girl's messages categorized by audience Activities Boasts Total Number Percent Number Percent Girls' messages to boys 11 8 73 1 9 Girls' messages to girls 28 16 57 1 4 Girls' messages-unspecified 11 6 55 1 9 Girls talked about activities 73% of the time when writing to boys and 57% when writing to girls, a result that again leans toward Tannen's theories but is not conclusive. However, when girls wrote to boys, they talked about relationships with friends, family, or members of the other gender only 27% of the time, while they talked about these relationships 67% of the time with other girls. The difference in gender styles of conversation seems to center around relationship talk rather than activity talk. In other words, girls talked about activities almost equally with boys and other girls, but talked about relationships forty percent less when they conversed with boys. This suggests that girls are aware that it is "inappropriate" to talk to boys about relationships, perhaps because they perceive that boys don't talk about relationships as often as they do, or perhaps because they don't wish to share this sort of personal information with boys. Whatever the reason, girls are altering their conversational style when talking to boys while boys seem to keep their report style in all situations. This supports Lange and Tannen, who say that women make more adjustments in mixed gender talk than men do, conforming to the male style of conversation. Although girls are often giving up their rapport talk with boys, it can be said that their conversational style is more well-rounded--with talk about activities, interests, and accomplishments as well as relationships when talking to other girls, while boys talk about activities, accomplishments, and objects but rarely about relationships whether they are with other boys or girls. Boys may have farther to go in developing a conversational style that includes a more holistic representation of themselves. If boys become more receptive to relationship talk among themselves, perhaps girls will be more willing to share a "rapport" with them. Conclusion In this study, I have attempted to discover to what extent the conversational styles of girls and boys adhere to Tannen's theories of "rapport" and "report" talk. To do this, I looked at categories of communication that would indicate relationship-oriented talk--rapport-- and activity and status-oriented talk--report. I also looked at the number of times girls and boys talked to each other and how these cross- gender messages differed from same gender messages. I found that girls and boys do have different conversational patterns, but are not as different as Tannen's theories would suggest. Girls and boys did talk to each other a significant number of times in almost equal numbers and both talked about activities in which they were involved. Boasting was not a significant issue. Boys, however, in accordance with Tannen's theories, did not talk as much about relationships as girls did; and girls significantly altered their rapport talk to resemble report talk when conversing with boys. To suggest differences between the way females and males communicate is not to say that one is the right way and the other wrong, or that females must change their ways, as is often the case when gender differences are discovered (Tannen, p.15). The results above suggest just the opposite. Boys may have something to learn from the way in which girls make connections through affiliation. As Gilligan has stated: "in the different voice of women lies the truth of an ethic of care, the tie between relationship and responsibility, and the origins of aggression in the failure of connection. The failure to see the different reality of women's lives and to hear the differences in their voices stems in part from the assumption that there is a single mode of social experience and interpretation" (p. 173). The differences between women and men and boys and girls when speaking to each other, however, may cause serious misunderstandings and further the barriers between us. This study suggests that different environments which may be perceived as "safer" and less socially bound may result in fewer differences in the way girls and boys converse. The implication is that by linking students to peers around the world through a computer network, schools can positively affect the ways in which males and females converse, and can open up more opportunities for cross-gender communication. In the classroom, social customs often prevent effective communication. On-line, social status and gender become less obvious differences and extend the boundaries of the student's community. A student doesn't have to break into a clique or take social risks in order to hold a conversation with someone she or he normally would not talk to. Further research on the social cues in computer dialogues could reveal insights into the ways computer networks influence the relationships among boys and girls. Is there any evidence of cliques on the network, and if so, how are they established? As an adult, I was unable to speak with the participants of KIDCAFE on-line. It would be interesting, however, to follow and interview KIDCAFE participants to discover how they decide who to talk to, how they establish connections and friendships, how participation in a computer dialogue changes their views about the other gender, and to what extent electronic mail affects their traditional interpersonal communication skills. Research on gender patterns of communication should explore all the ways in which females and males converse so that we can view electronic communication not only as a source of information, but an instrument of change. REFERENCES Biber, D. 1986. "Spoken and written textual dimensions in English." _Language_, 62, 384-414. Gilligan, Carol. 1982. _In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development_. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kiesler, S., & T.W. McGuire. 1984. "Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication." _American Psychologist_, 39, 1123- 1134. Lange, Deborah. 1988. "Using Like to Introduce Constructed Dialogue: How Like Contributes to Discourse Coherence." Master's thesis, Georgetown University. Nystrand, M. 1987. "The role of context in written communication." In R. Horowitz & S.J. Samuels (Eds.), _Comprehending oral and written language_ (pp. 197-214). New York: Academic Press. Tannen, Deborah. 1990. _You Just Don't Understand_. New York: Ballantine. The AAUW Report: _How Schools Shortchange Girls_. Researched by Wellesley College Center for Research, Commissioned by American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1992.