21 Gender differences in nonverbal communication

Hall, Judith A.; Gunnery, Sarah D.

doi:10.1515/9783110238150.639

Cited by 69 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A. Hall (1987) correctly noted that describing group differences in terms of the group with the higher mean is an established convention. But she also noted that such convention might have the unfortunate consequence of neglecting factors that might specifically affect men's smiling.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The contingent smile: A meta-analysis of sex differences in smiling.

LaFrance¹,

Hecht²,

Paluck³

2003

Psychological Bulletin

435

288

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors present a meta-analysis of sex differences in smiling based on 448 effect sizes derived from 162 research reports. There was a statistically significant tendency for women and adolescent girls to smile more than men and adolescent boys (d ϭ 0.41). The authors hypothesized that sex differences in smiling would be larger when concerns about gender-appropriate behavior were made more conspicuous, situational constraints were absent or ambiguous, or emotion (especially negative) was salient. It was also predicted that the size of the sex difference in smiling would vary by culture and age. Moderator analysis supported these predictions. Although men tend to smile less than women, the degree to which this is so is contingent on rules and roles.It is virtually a cliché of Western culture that women are both more emotional and more expressive than men. Although the extent of sex differences 1 in measured emotionality remains in dispute (Brody, 1997;Fischer, 1993;LaFrance & Banaji, 1992), there is substantial agreement that women are more overtly expressive than men

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The contingent smile: A meta-analysis of sex differences in smiling.

LaFrance¹,

Hecht²,

Paluck³

2003

Psychological Bulletin

435

288

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…John & Robins, 1993). Given the known sex differences in emotional expressivity (women are more expressive; see Footnote 4, as well as Gross & John, 1995;Hall, 1979;LaFrance & Banaji, 1992;Shields, 1987) and the important role of subjective experience in emotion expression, we also tested whether relations between self-reports and peer ratings of expressivity were independent of sex and emotion experience.…”

Section: Study 2: Peer Ratings Of Emotional Expressivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Revealing feelings: Facets of emotional expressivity in self-reports, peer ratings, and behavior.

Gross¹,

John²

1997

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

348

282

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing on an explicit model of emotion, we propose a multifaceted approach to emotional expressivity, defined as the behavioral (e.g., facial, postural) changes associated with emotion. Study 1 shows that self-reported expressivity has 3 facets (Impulse Strength, Negative Expressivity, Positive Expressivity). Study 2 shows that the same 3 facets emerge in peer ratings and that there are robust relations between self-and peer-rated expressivity. In Study 3, emotion-expressive behavior was videotaped and related to expressivity self-reports obtained several months earlier. As expected, Negative Expressivity predicted behavioral expressions of sadness (but not amusement), whereas Positive Expressivity predicted amusement (but not sadness). These relations remained even when subjective emotional experience and physiological response were controlled. These studies demonstrate the importance of a multifaceted approach to emotional expressivity and have implications for the understanding of personality and emotion.

show abstract

“…The eyes are considered the key cue in decoding nonverbal behavior (Hall 1987). Eye contact or lack thereof communicates status, mood, and thought.…”

Section: Implications Of Gendered Imagesmentioning

confidence: 99%