Gender differences in communicative abstraction.

Priyanka D. Joshi · Cheryl Jan Wakslak · Gil Appel · Laura Huang

51 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Personality and Social Psychology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Gender Studies in Language Social and Intergroup Psychology Social Power and Status Dynamics

Abstract

Drawing on construal level theory, which suggests that experiencing a communicative audience as proximal rather than distal leads speakers to frame messages more concretely, we examine gender differences in linguistic abstraction. In a meta-analysis of prior studies examining the effects of distance on communication, we find that women communicate more concretely than men when an audience is described as being psychologically close. These gender differences in linguistic abstraction are eliminated when speakers consider an audience whose distance has been made salient (Study 1). In studies that follow, we examine gender differences in linguistic abstraction in contexts where the nature of the audience is not specified. Across a written experimental context (Study 2), a large corpus of online blog posts (Study 3), and the real-world speech of congressmen and congresswomen (Study 4), we find that men speak more abstractly than women. These gender differences in speech abstraction continue to emerge when subjective feelings of power are experimentally manipulated (Study 5). We believe that gender differences in linguistic abstraction are the result of several interrelated processes-including but not limited to social network size and homogeneity, communication motives involving seeking proximity or distance, perceptions of audience homogeneity and distance, as well as experience of power. In Study 6, we find preliminary support for mediation of gender differences in linguistic abstraction by women's tendency to interact in small social networks. We discuss implication of these gender differences in communicative abstraction for existing theory and provide suggestions for future research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 51 citations exist upstream.

References

2002A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition.2002Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.2010Construal-level theory of psychological distance.2006Implementation Intentions and Goal Achievement: A Meta‐analysis of Effects and Processes 1973Language and woman's place 2005The gender similarities hypothesis.1992You just don't understand : women and men in conversation 2001Description and Prescription: How Gender Stereotypes Prevent Women's Ascent Up the Organizational Ladder

Cited by

2021Subtle Linguistic Cues Affecting Gender In(Equality)2023Not Like the Rest of Us? How CEO Celebrity Affects Quarterly Earnings Call Language 2020Stereotyping in the digital age: Male language is “ingenious”, female language is “beautiful” – and popular 2023Masculine Defaults in Academic Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Fields 2021Beyond biology: The importance of cultural factors in explaining gender disparities in STEM preferences

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.