Women Are More Likely Than Men to Use Tentative Language, Aren’t They? A Meta-Analysis Testing for Gender Differences and Moderators

Abstract

Robin Lakoff proposed that women are more likely than men to use tentative speech forms (e.g., hedges, qualifiers/disclaimers, tag questions, intensifiers). Based on conflicting results from research testing Lakoff's claims, a meta-analysis of studies testing gender differences in tentative language was conducted. The sample included 29 studies with 39 independent samples and a combined total sample of 3,502 participants. Results revealed a statistically significant but small effect size (d ¼ .23), indicating that women were somewhat more likely than men to use tentative speech. In addition, methodological moderators (operational definition, observation length, recording method, author gender, and year of study) and contextual moderators (gender composition, familiarity, student status, group size, conversational activity, and physical setting) were tested. Effect sizes were significantly larger in studies that (a) observed longer (vs. shorter) conversations, (b) sampled undergraduates (vs. other adults), (c) observed groups (vs. dyads), and (d) occurred in research labs (vs. other settings). The moderator effects are interpreted as supporting proposals that women's greater likelihood of tentative language reflects interpersonal sensitivity rather than a lack of assertiveness. In addition, the influence of self-presentation concerns in the enactment of gender-typed behavior is discussed.

Training on the job: behavioral analysis of job interviews in hospitality

“…As the difference in N is relatively small (57% female to 43% male) and both data subsets have comparable size (or larger) compared to other existing datasets, we believe this is an interesting result. This result is supported by findings in psychology [21] and is in line with gender stereotypes for men, and with persuasiveness.…”

“…Third, we analyzed the relationship between automatically extracted nonverbal cues and various perceived social variables in a correlation analysis and a prediction task, and extended the results found in [24]. We found gender differences that confirmed previous findings in psychology [21]. Fourth, we observed that students overall improved their interview performance during the second laboratory session, suggesting that the feedback they obtained at least partly helped them improve the first impressions that raters formed about them.…”

“…Furthermore, striking gender differences can be observed in terms of correlation values, such as speaking time, statistics of turn duration, speech energy, and silence; these behaviors are part of what psychologists refer to as powerful speech. On the one hand, if men use these cues they are perceived as powerful, which is in line with gender stereotypes for men, as well as with persuasiveness [21]. On the other hand, stereotpyically women are less expected to show powerful speech, which might explain the lower correlations found for women.…”

Female competition and aggression: interdisciplinary perspectives

“…The result is a flatter dominance hierarchy and greater egalitarianism [129,130]. Women are also more likely than men to use rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil Trans R Soc B 368: 20130073 affiliative speech styles and less likely to use assertive styles [131,132]. As discussed by Benenson [101] in this issue, these sex differences become manifest early in the preschool years at the same time as sex-segregated peer groups emerge.…”

Examining Graduate Student Engagement in Counseling Services with Diverse Populations in P-12 Education

“…While this was not the intent of this study, the purpose of which was to explore a specific phenomenon that had implications for the graduate counseling program in which the study participants were enrolled, it is relevant to note this as a limitation. Secondly, all study participants were female; this limited the chance to explore if perceived lack of support could be explained by assertiveness differences between males and females (see Leaper & Robnett, 2011). Lastly, socioeconomic status and other identities of participants were not collected as part of this study.…”