Dialog Structure Through the Lens of Gender, Gender Environment, and Power

Abstract

Understanding how the social context of an interaction affects our dialog behavior is of great interest to social scientists who study human behavior, as well as to computer scientists who build automatic methods to infer those social contexts. In this paper, we study the interaction of power, gender, and dialog behavior in organizational interactions. In order to perform this study, we first construct the Gender Identified Enron Corpus of emails, in which we semi-automatically assign the gender of around 23,000 individuals who authored around 97,000 email messages in the Enron corpus. This corpus, which is made freely available, is orders of magnitude larger than previously existing gender identified corpora in the email domain. Next, we use this corpus to perform a largescale data-oriented study of the interplay of gender and manifestations of power. We argue that, in addition to one’s own gender, the “gender environment” of an interaction, i.e., the gender makeup of one’s interlocutors, also affects the way power is manifested in dialog. We focus especially on manifestations of power in the dialog structure — both, in a shallow sense that disregards the textual content of messages (e.g., how often do the participants contribute, how often do they get replies etc.), as well as the structure that is expressed within the textual content (e.g., who issues requests and how are they made, whose requests get responses etc.). We find that both gender and gender environment affect the ways power is manifested in dialog, resulting in patterns that reveal the underlying factors. Finally, we show the utility of gender information in the problem of automatically predicting the direction of power between pairs of participants in email interactions.

Contextual Affective Analysis: A Case Study of People Portrayals in Online #MeToo Stories

“…Furthermore, while automated sentiment analysis has spanned many areas (Pang and Lee 2008;Liu 2012) 3 analysis of power has been almost entirely limited to a dialog setting: how does person A talk to a higher-powered person B? (Gilbert 2012;Prabhakaran and Rambow 2017;Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil et al 2012). Here, we focus on a narrative setting: does the journalist portray person A or person B as more powerful?…”

Women’s Syntactic Resilience and Men’s Grammatical Luck: Gender-Bias in Part-of-Speech Tagging and Dependency Parsing

“…We isolate the first names using regular expressions, and follow Prabhakaran and Rambow (2017) to automatically assign gender and compute a gender ambiguity score taking into consideration: (1) the list of first names obtained based on Facebook profiles by Tang et al (2011); and (2) the Social Security Administration's (SSA) baby names data set. 2 The Facebook list has male and female assignment scores for each name, while the SSA maintains a data set of counts for baby names and gender for each year since the 1880s.…”

Stylistic variation over 200 years of court proceedings according to gender and social class

“…Eisenstein (2015); Eisenstein et al (2011);Nguyen et al (2015); Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil et al (2013); Jurafsky et al (2009)). Recently, also the possible interplay between social variables is considered (Prabhakaran and Rambow, 2017), but is mostly confined to age and gender (see e.g. Ardehaly and Culotta (2015); Argamon et al (2007); Barbieri (2008); Burger et al (2011);Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (2013); Holmes and Meyerhoff (2003); Hovy and Søgaard (2015); Nguyen et al (2014); Peersman et al (2011);Schwartz et al (2013); Wagner (2012)) as other social variables -such as social class -are not easily available (cf.…”