3.8 Article

Computer mediated communication: Gender and group composition

Journal

CYBERPSYCHOLOGY & BEHAVIOR
Volume 3, Issue 5, Pages 817-826

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT INC PUBL
DOI: 10.1089/10949310050191791

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The question of whether men and women communicate differently using computer mediated communication (CMC) was examined in a series of four studies. Although there were some overall differences between men and women, the variable with the strongest relationship to communication style was the gender composition of the groups within which the communication took place. Women using CMC with other women in small task groups developed a significantly different style of communication than did men using CMC with other men. Mixed gender groups fell between the single gender groups and had their own special features. There is some evidence that gender norms were developed and gendered patterns of communication predominated. These findings are explained from the point of view of social presence; that is, the ability to make one's self known under conditions of low media richness. Women in female-only (FO) groups were able to overcome the limitations of the text-only format of CMC; they established an online presence through use of self-disclosure, use of I statements and through directly addressing their messages to other group members. On the other hand, men in male-only groups (MO), ignored the socioemotional aspects of group functioning and were more likely to engage in a collective monologue approach to discussion with the addition of mild flaming. Men in MO groups were less satisfied with the CMC experience and showed lower levels of group development. However, a fifth study on identification of communicator gender by message content alone provides a caution concerning becoming stereotyped in expectations concerning CMC by men and women. There is variability beyond the averages.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available