Abstract
The paper will highlight the various distinctions in verbal and nonverbal approaches between the two genders. The work aims to gain insights into sociological and biological factors that influence interpersonal communication differences between genders. The review that analyzed gender differences in communication would allow people to understand the inherent abilities of different genders and comprehend the causes of discrimination.
In this situation, such studies would address questions regarding gender differences in communication between males and females, disregarding social preconceptions, and explore why such disparities arise. Developing strong social connections in everyday settings depends heavily on effective interpersonal communication. In this sense, interpersonal communication encompasses all verbal and nonverbal activities that occur during an encounter. Social relationships are the essential components of interpersonal communication. The character and effectiveness of individual involvement are the main subjects of research in interpersonal relationships.
Evaluating the previous research done in this domain is of utmost importance to provide a proper analysis of the issue. In this sense, research on the precision of interpreting sentiments from facial photographs was released early in the development of social psychology. The most significant finding of the study is that it brought attention to a gender difference that had long been overlooked in psychological research: women outperformed men in two categories of college students. In addition, around twelve studies examined men’s and women’s precision in recognizing emotions released in the 1920s and 1930s. The research did not explain this variation, but several writers have hypothesized about it, which has developed into a substantial and still-expanding body of literature.
Introduction
Interpersonal communication encompasses numerous subjects that warrant considerable attention and further development. These include studies on cognition, selfhood, understanding, the interaction between society and individuals, and others. The topic of interest for this review is gender differences in interpersonal communication. The literature review will focus on the nature of differences between men and women regarding interpersonal communication.
Nowadays, gender roles and gender differences constitute a crucial topic in the face of discrimination. The media’s coverage of gender emphasizes preconceived and traditional perceptions of men and women (Roloff 115). However, when filtering the socially imposed standards and norms, there are still major differences between genders, not just in terms of physical condition but also in psychological approaches.
Therefore, research in interpersonal communication emphasizing gender differences is essential for non-academic settings. The concept that males and females interact in quite different ways has received significant attention from scholars, sociologists, psychologists, and the public. Although the distinctions between men’s and women’s communication patterns may sometimes appear minor, as both genders can exhibit emotional, aggressive, or caring behaviors, there are still inherent variations in interpersonal communication.
Reviewing various research and theoretical traditions on gender variations in interpersonal communication is essential. When compared across different cue categories, females outperform males at deducing the meanings of emotive signals (Hall et al. 23). This distinction is true regardless of the target gender, age range, culture, or timeframe.
Although there is less research on the subject, women are better at evaluating personality (Kimbrough et al. 898). They react more rapidly to accuracy tests, are better at recalling others’ looks and nonverbal cues, and have a deeper understanding of the definitions and applications of nonverbal communication. Nevertheless, there is evidence that males tend to perform better than females when assessing physical discomfort, identifying lies, and evaluating social standing.
To complete the review, the first vital step will be to evaluate the impact of social and biological factors on gender differences. This will allow the given work to illuminate the root of the differences and ascertain whether it is the sociological or biological impact. Analyzing social and biological theories will help corroborate, shed light on the given matter, and explain variations in behavior and communication (Ayres 410).
Another addition to the review will be analyzing research material from previous decades and current trends in gender difference studies to examine changes in perceptions and gain new insights into the issue. This will enable the paper to determine whether opinions regarding the subject have changed and identify obsolete or misleading ideas if such are found. The study evaluates verbal and nonverbal communication of both women and men to see how representatives of different genders can utilize varying approaches. For instance, when it comes to verbal differences, it is necessary to assess self-disclosure, relationship management, conflict resolution, and supportive behaviors that emphasize gender variations. The vital factors to consider for nonverbal distinctions in interpersonal communication are gestures, mimics, and expressions.
Literature Review
Interpersonal communication is the exchange of information between two or more people for mutual understanding. Interpersonal communication refers to the verbal and nonverbal techniques by which information, ideas, and emotions are shared between individuals in a group. Face-to-face interactions typically involve using spoken, facial, physical, and gestural cues to convey meaning (Stamp 537). Individuals’ proficiency in conveying ideas to others indicates their interpersonal communication skills.
Social and Biological Concerns
Diverse theoretical lenses, including evolutionary, social role, and skill specialization, have been used by researchers to investigate gender variations in supportive communication. One of the most central and contentious ideas in the field of helpful contact is the different cultures thesis (DCT). It proposes that females and males have different speech groups that employ cross-cultural interactions and place different values on relational features such as instrumental versus relational goals (Albada et al. 27). Critics of the DCT point out that it does not do enough to explain why there are gender variations in supportive behavior. They point to alternative theories such as social role theory and the expertise specialization model.
The evolutionary theory emphasizes within-species variation for its adaptive usefulness. The optimal biological and behavioral strategies vary not only with the type of environmental context but also with the features of the organism, such as age, gender, well-being, or size. From an evolutionary standpoint, the disparities between the sexes in modern humans can be explained by the selective pressures exerted by historically distinct physical and social environments for females and males (Stephen and Harrison 169).
It is speculated that each sex experiences unique challenges due to reproductive differences. The foundations of sex differences in behavior can be traced back to the evolution of sex-specific systems that humans today retain. The sexes took various approaches to protect their survival and reproductive success. This clarifies the underlying causes of the sex gap in psychology and interpersonal dynamics.
According to proponents of the social structural hypothesis, institutionalized discrimination between the sexes significantly contributes to the phenomenon. The psychological differences between men and women are an adaptation to the diverse social roles they play (Fritz 48). Gender differences are not intrinsic but instead socially induced; it is widely held that the challenges faced by each sex alter over time and among cultures due to developments in economics, biology, and politics. Due to their physical superiority, men are accorded a more excellent status in cultures.
Since one sex is better suited to complete specific tasks, physical sex differences impact men’s and women’s roles. The social standing of sex is based on how well its members perform. Attributable to their biological distinctions, men and women are said to acquire characteristics that correspond to their respective social standings (Braithwaite and Schrodt 28). Men in positions of authority and prestige tend to act more dominantly, whereas women in similar positions are expected to act submissively. According to the social structuralist perspective, sex differences are best understood as hardwired inclinations that try to fit into predetermined social positions.
It is hypothesized that males mainly use interpersonal communication to seek or impart information or express themselves, whereas females use it to form bonds with others. Women are thought to be more open and quicker to seek aid, whereas men are highly likely to compete. These variations result from a combination of innate genetic tendencies and acquired behavior. Social and cultural learning, or nurture, has a far more significant impact on communication and behavior than biological differences between the sexes.
Natural sex variations in neuro-physiology contribute to many misunderstandings and strife between the sexes (Anderson et al., “The Reach of Dialogue” 25). The male sex hormone testosterone, for instance, has been linked to increased aggressive behavior among men. Similarly, the fluctuating amounts of estrogen and progesterone (female sex hormones) over the menstrual cycle affect the levels of these chemicals in the brain, which in turn affects the emotions and cognition of women.
Neuro-physiological distinctions account for some notable discrepancies between how men and women express themselves. It has been widely held among neuroscientists for a long time that women have an advantage over men in social situations due to their supposedly larger prefrontal cortex, the region of the brain responsible for language and social processing. However, recent research suggests that the brain is ‘plastic,’ meaning it may form new neural networks to complete challenging cognitive (mental) activities when necessary (Arnett and Arneson 23). This means that the brain undergoes incremental adjustments and upgrades to equip an individual with the mental ability necessary to do any activity (including communication), no matter how difficult it may appear. In addition, neurons from several parts of the brain act simultaneously to provide a ‘moment of experience,’ suggesting that brain activities are not necessarily confined to specific regions.
The communication styles of men and women are distinct from one another. Men and women might be genetically predisposed to view the world through different lenses (Baxter and Montgomery 32). This means that men and women may use language (and non-verbal clues) to communicate in such distinct ways that many people may be ‘blind’ to the effects of their messages on the other sex. Every individual forms an opinion and concludes that the other sex must be fundamentally flawed since they cannot understand the precise meaning of what is being said or inferred.
Interpersonal conflict between the sexes would decrease dramatically, and life, in general, would become simpler for both if society evolved to minimize stereotypical expectations of the genders. Ultimately, both sexes need each other to fulfill their biological and social duties. Women have a somewhat greater propensity than men to perform maintenance tasks (Taylor 32). Furthermore, women’s maintenance actions have a more fundamental impact on the value of their interactions than men’s maintenance practices.
One possible rationale for maintenance activities is equity theory, which examines the fairness with which people treat one another. Compared to those under- or over-benefited, persons treated fairly are more likely to engage in behaviors that help them maintain personal relationships. Females’ reports of how reasonably the rapport tends to present a strong forecaster of whether both players use maintenance activities, indicating women’s considerations of evenhandedness, are more important than males’ when envisaging if either individual will hold maintenance practices.
Women may be as forceful and forthright as men in situations where they feel comfortable. Some examples of assertive behavior are bringing up the issue at hand, trying to figure out what is causing the tension, being honest about how one feels, and so on. Displays of wrath, placing blame on the other person, and demeaning the other individual are all examples of aggressive, assertive conduct.
Men are more likely than women to engage in avoidance actions like withdrawing from conflict or denying the existence of an issue (Anderson et al., “Dialogue” 43). Many theories have been put forth to explain why women may be more aggressive than men. Boys and girls play in different groups on the playground, with boys participating in more structured games emphasizing relational connection rather than gaining points (such as team sports).
Women enjoy openly discussing concerns and facts in their relationships, but men would rather avoid them, maybe because girls learn conflict resolution skills while boys do not. An alternate theory suggests that this is because women experience more problems in marriage than men; for instance, the distribution of household work is often unfair to women. Women treated unfairly often attempt to alter the existing quo, which males often defend by ignoring (Miller 28). A significant presumption is that males are more attuned to their physiological responses to conflict than women, and consequently, they withdraw to maintain self-control. Meanwhile, women are more likely to try fixing relational difficulties while ignoring physiological reactions.
People call it supportive behavior when they use words to offer or request assistance. Differences between the sexes in supporting conduct have been documented, yet there are more similarities than differences between the sexes in helpful communication. Women are more inclined to seek and offer emotional backing (such as displays of sorrow) than males (Carter and Presnell 26). They are also more likely to pay attention to the other person’s sentiments and embrace highly person-centered (HPC) reassuring messaging.
Messages that focus on the other person demonstrate an understanding of the factors that shape their experience. HPC reassurances validate the other person’s emotions, while low person-centered (LPC) supports the review and discounts the other individual’s sentiments. One typical measure used to assess the efficacy of supportive messages is the degree to which they focus on the recipient as an individual.
While both genders agree that HPC communications are more receptive and valuable than LPC ones, research consistently shows that women have a more favorable impression of HPC messages and a less positive impression of LPC ones. Relational collaborators’ expressive proficiencies are more valued than their influential ones, for example, advice-giving. Women value expressive abilities more than men, while males highly cherish instrumental skills (Ambrester and Strause 45). In addition, evidence shows that both genders choose to discuss difficulties with and search for support from females and that women place a slightly higher value on pursuing emotion-centered objectives in supportive environments than males.
Interpersonal Communication in the Classroom
To succeed in school and beyond, students need a theoretical understanding of their subject and extensive practical experience. Among these methods is good communication between people. Communication patterns like these are crucial to students’ success in the academic setting, where they will engage in various social activities (Pearce, “Preface” 2). Therefore, students adept at communicating with one another will have few problems making friends, as this type of communication fosters an atmosphere of joy and understanding that promotes harmonious relationships among students. This emphasizes the importance of pupils’ strong interpersonal communication skills for their academic performance.
Overall, Pearce found that students in vocational colleges had a higher index of soft skills than learners in general (“Metatheoretical Concerns” 5). Compared to other factors like motivation, adaptability, readiness to learn, honesty, rapport building, collaboration, mutual aid, and leadership, the outcome illustrated that learners’ communication proficiencies are ranked lowest. This demonstrates the need to train students’ interpersonal communication skills to enhance their communication abilities. Interpersonal communication among students has been the subject of numerous research studies.
Demographic factors, such as age, duration of service, and sex, have no direct relationship with interpersonal communication proficiencies. Nevertheless, research results indicate that it is essential to enhance engineering education to make learners more employable, as numerous students still possess deficient interpersonal communication skills (Chichirez and Purcărea 121). Involving students in a communication context through role-playing can help them overcome issues due to limited interpersonal communication skills.
However, most prior research on interpersonal communication has focused on the notion, ignoring crucial factors such as gender. Given the prominence of concerns about gender in contemporary society, research into how pupils of various sexes interact socially is warranted (Chichirez and Purcărea 120). Women are more prone to disclose personal information than men, both in person and via electronic means of contact (Berger 12). It is also evident that there are distinguishable differences in the ways men and women express themselves in conversations. Men talk to each other in a ‘report’ style to establish dominance and authority. Women are more likely to employ ‘rapport’ chat to establish a friendly atmosphere.
By contrast, a study by Monge found that, regardless of gender, people feel equally acknowledged when communicating via email or instant messaging (25). In light of these occurrences, it is essential to investigate whether male and female students differ in their interpersonal interactions from a gendered vantage point. Such investigations examine what generates excellent interpersonal communication by examining factors such as receptivity, sympathy, positivity, and parity. Students who communicate and interact effectively with others are more likely to form lasting friendships. They will be able to concentrate and learn effectively in this setting. The findings are expected to contribute to advancing the understanding of gender differences in interpersonal communication. Additionally, the collected data can help inform future studies of a similar nature.
Historical View
Grasping gender-specific contexts in contemporary interrelations requires understanding the historical foundations of general interpersonal communication. Sociologists in the early 20th century were interested in aspects of interpersonal communication, including reciprocal awareness, attributes of the dyad, interaction practices, privacy, deceit, reality, and the formation of social relationships, which are still contested today. During the 1920s and 1930s, symbolic interactionism theory emerged as the idea that an individual’s sense of self develops through relationships with significant persons (Cushman 33). Several subfields in the study of human interaction with one another emerged in the 1940s and 1950s.
In the 1960s, the study of interpersonal communication emerged as an independent academic discipline. Interpersonal communication as a distinct scholarly field emerged in the 1970s. In the 1980s, the trend toward improved and expanded interpersonal communication gained steam (Ayres 420). The challenges of investigating the dynamic interaction process were the topic of discussion.
With the rise of the field of study known as ‘interpersonal communication,’ researchers began paying more attention to the dynamics of personal relationships. People’s inner and outer selves are seen to have a mutually beneficial relationship in interpersonal contact. Today, many experts in the field of communication have zeroed in on subsets of interpersonal interaction, such as the disparities between sexes in terms of communication.
Gender Perspective
Learning to communicate effectively is a complex process that can lead to issues. Communication can be influenced by several things, including context, time, cultural norms, and even gender. Differences between the sexes may arise from biology, socialization, cultural norms, and learned behaviors (Stewart 190). People’s preferred modes of expression can be influenced by a wide range of factors, including their upbringing, level of education, age, and gender. Men and women tend to use language in distinct and individualized ways.
It is common practice to attribute these distinctions to the individuals’ respective sexes. The brains of men and women are wired differently, resulting in variations in their thinking and reasoning. Men tend to take a more analytical approach to information processing, whereas women are more likely to be hands-on. Problems arise when people of various sexes are presumed to think and behave similarly, even though each has a unique communication style. Although their communication styles are radically different, they both believe they utilize the same pattern.
One way to tell a man from a woman is by observing how they talk. According to research, men are more likely to engage in interpersonal communication aimed at establishing authority and status. In contrast, women are more likely to engage in discussions to foster emotional closeness. As a result, men typically engage in combative dialogue while women show a more unified front.
Males tend to take a more straightforward approach to fixing problems, whereas females are more likely to build rapport through expressions of care and sympathy (Arnett, “Toward a Phenomenological Dialogue” 210). When addressing problems, men hunt for answers and rely on their strength to get the job done, while women typically use the same skill to fortify interpersonal bonds. Men are more likely to take on leadership roles, such as delivering speeches, giving orders, answering questions, and expressing disagreement openly.
Males and females can display nurturing, aggressive, task-focused, or emotional tendencies. Males and females may ascribe various interpretations to the same message. There may be a ‘war of the sexes’ since men and women understand information differently. Research shows that women are more attuned to the detailed meanings of their partners’ and their communications than men (Arnett, “What is Dialogic Communication?” 50).
That is to say, according to societal norms, women should control the level of proximity they allow between themselves and others. The implication of intimacy is said to be of more interest to women than to men, which may explain why females are more likely to read text messages at length. When it comes to status, though, men are more attuned to ‘between the lines implications’ than women. Men are socialized to assume leadership roles and are expected to work within established hierarchies.
Attributable to the discrepancy between the messages’ emphasis on interpersonal rather than status implications, women tend to anticipate relationships based on interdependence (mutual dependency) and collaboration. Women are more likely to find common ground with others and seek consensus when making judgments (Arnett, “Interpersonal Praxis” 148). Conversely, men typically have higher expectations that their relationships will be centered on rivalry and individualism. Men are more likely to focus on what sets them apart from others and make choices motivated by their needs and aspirations. Many studies have found that women excel in interpersonal relationships, while men excel in completing specific tasks.
Women are often the specialists in ‘rapport talk,’ a type of communication that helps create, maintain, and strengthen relationships. Effective communication, caregiving, expressing emotions, empathy, and a willingness to provide a hand are all hallmarks of a high rapport (Cahn and Hanford 283). When it comes to completing tasks and answering queries regarding facts, males are usually the go-to experts. They are well-versed in ‘report talk,’ the language of analysis and problem-solving. The ‘report talk’ reflects communication abilities such as competitiveness, lack of emotion, analyticalness, and intense task focus. Attributable to these distinctions, there is potential for frequent misunderstandings.
Extent of Differences
The data on women’s interpersonal communication scores reveal that they are more likely to excel in the equality area. Women have an inherent advantage when it comes to presenting themselves as equals. They are willing to see themselves in the same position as the other person in a conversation. The fact that they could establish two-way contact based on shared needs and relaxed conversation demonstrates that they appreciate their differences and value the presence of others (Baxter 187). This shows that despite their gender differences, women can treat others with respect and dignity. Gender equality, in which men and women have the same social and economic status, is becoming an increasingly pressing problem, which may have some bearing on this trend. This outcome is consistent with the assumption that women can establish rapport and foster intimacy through conversation.
Male students score higher than female students in more aspects of interpersonal communication. Male students score higher than their female counterparts in the openness category (Morse and Phelps 32). It is a sign that they are skilled at conveying their point and receptive to advice from others. This contradicts the hypothesis that men are more likely to use dialogue to display their dominance and authority than women. It may occur because males are more likely to be motivated by trusting their communication partner and sharing their thoughts and feelings openly. This is a positive development, as being open to feedback from others equips people to handle the problems they encounter.
Female students are more reserved about sharing personal details with their friends than their male counterparts. Thus, they stick to more generic topics when conversing with female friends. This issue can be resolved by providing them with various communication exercises that demonstrate the value of openness and embracing the advice of others in developing their technological and soft skills. This initiative aligns with Miller and Steinberg’s recommendation that learners’ interpersonal communication skills can be enhanced by engaging in various communication activities, including role-playing (28).
Males outscore females regarding the empathy subcategory of successful interpersonal communication. Men, in particular, can empathize with the feelings and perspectives of their female peers and see the situation from their counterparts’ points of view. This contradicts the notion that men focus on a single problem until they find a solution, and then they utilize their superior physical strength to implement it.
Women often use this problem-solving issue as a springboard for deeper conversation and connection with their conversational partners. One possible explanation for this difference is that women appear to have minimal empathy, attributable to a lack of motivation (Albada et al. 17). In contrast, men have high empathy because they are highly motivated to form strong relationships with their friends to succeed in completing the task by collaborating with others. Friends have assumed rivals to be treated as dangerous individuals. Several elucidations, communication practices, and coaching sessions could be provided to help females understand that becoming a competitor does not imply they will stop being human and need to demonstrate empathy in all conditions.
When comparing males and females, the difference in scores for supportiveness is minimal. Males might show their support by being descriptive rather than evaluative, flexible, and assured. Men are known to help their colleagues when they have pressing issues, whether with finishing a project or something else. Men will also look to one another for help while grasping a new concept presented at work. Potentially fueling it is the males’ desire to see their pals do well (Stephen and Harrison 167).
Like men, women display their friendship to others, albeit their methods may vary from those used by males. To aid their friends struggling in life, they often spend time explaining concepts and answering questions to ensure their acquaintances can reach the required standard. Male and female friends are always there to support and cheer each other on during medical procedures. This aligns with the theory that men and women tend to express themselves differently when interacting with others.
Males outscore their female counterparts in the flourishing communication category of positive attitude, but only slightly. Men generally believe that most individuals are good at heart, which helps them recognize and value individual differences; they have a generally upbeat outlook on life. Males may be more likely to express optimism in their communications, indicating a more positive outlook on life (Fritz 43). Females tend to have a more pessimistic outlook on life than their male counterparts, which may contribute to their more gloomy perspective on life’s challenges. The best option is guidance that encourages people to face challenges head-on and helps them see that they are solvable.
Women are more likely to open up about themselves to people they know well and strangers than men. For instance, women are highly likely to share personal details with their acquaintances and discuss broader issues than men. Females and males have different anticipations for closeness in love partnerships (Johnson et al. 238). However, the relevance of the observed sex differences in self-disclosure is questionable because the effect sizes depicted in research are often minimal. The average impact size accounts for less than six percent of the discrepancy in disclosure conduct. However, women tend to reveal more to both same-sex and opposite-sex colleagues overall. Additionally, the degree of openness appears to minimize sex differences. For instance, when comparing self-reports and ratings based on observations to scores associated with a partner’s self-disclosure, more extensive sex disparities are seen for the latter.
Nonverbal Communication
According to an examination of nonverbal behavior conducted by Roloff and Miller, women are more likely to show nonverbal sensitivity and smile than men (36). In other words, women are typically better than men at deciphering the emotional and intellectual underpinnings of nonverbal cues. Women tend to be better at interpreting nonverbal cues, such as facial expressions, than men.
Additionally, Sari’s literature review highlighted women’s superior understanding of body language (92). Anderson also discovered that men are superior to women in interpreting nonverbal actions and spatial mapping (“The Reach of Dialogue” 28). For example, men’s ability to mentally navigate and rotate three-dimensional objects is more developed. Additionally, males may be more dominant in delineating the interpersonal spaces used during an engagement.
Historically, both social and biological ideas have been used to explain the observable variations in men’s and women’s nonverbal communication styles. According to social role theory, gendered inequalities in interpersonal interactions result from the historical and contemporary division of labor (Ayisi and Krisztina 53). Due to their traditional roles as primary caregivers, women often adopt a more passive social position and develop strong interpersonal skills. In contrast, men tend to be more self-interested and less empathetic than women. The evolutionary theory provides an alternative theoretical explanation, suggesting that men’s greater stature was necessary for hunting and fighting rivals. Being able to breastfeed and being physically smaller meant that women stayed home to care for children and wounded warriors. This role required them to have an understanding of body language.
More than 10,000 expressions may be shown on the human face, but men tend to utilize fewer of them than women. Because women were taught more conciliatory body language as toddlers, they are more likely to rely on facial signals, such as eye contact and nodding. Women are socialized from an early age to adjust their bodies to conform to those of others, sit quietly, and use more gestures than men. Whereas female gestures are frequent, more natural, and flowing, men tend to make quick, deliberate gestures.
Compared to men, women are far more likely to employ paralanguage, which is defined as the nonlexical component of communication through speech, including intonation, pitch, the pace of speaking, hesitation noises, gestures, and facial expressions (Sari 90). ‘Mm’, ‘ah’, and ‘oh’ sounds, as well as nods of the head, are examples of gestural communication. Without explicitly stating anything, these gestures communicate that one can hear and comprehend what the other is saying. While males are just as likely as women to employ paralanguage, they do so less frequently and more often to corroborate someone else’s opinion or express agreement.
Men are far more inclined to establish and enforce boundaries around personal space. Men frequently prefer in-person interactions where they can physically connect through gestures like handshakes and shoulder pats. Women tend to prefer being around other females and are more at ease when seated side by side while conversing (Ayisi and Krisztina 54).
Genetics accounts for many of the similarities and the few variances in how men and women use touch to express themselves. Pats, back slaps, and shoulder rubs are typical methods of dominance shown among males. Men will typically shake hands upon meeting for the first time to establish trust and the tone for future conversations. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to offer a hug or touch someone on the arm to establish rapport and express solidarity. Most studies have found that women trying to build relationships with others are more likely to make frequent, prolonged eye contact. Conversely, males are more likely to utilize eye contact to challenge authority when conversing.
Women are typically better than men at perceiving subtle social signs. According to studies, females are more adept at recognizing and responding to people’s nonverbal cues (Ayisi and Krisztina 55). A woman has an innate ability to read people and use this to her advantage. Women have always been more perceptive of and attentive to nonverbal cues. Some people have a natural ability to discern subtle cues that others miss. Many social scientists attribute it to the fact that women are seen as second-class citizens; being in a vulnerable position necessitates learning to adapt to the preferences of the powerful. Scientists have speculated that it may be related to being the primary caregiver for a child.
Although women triumph in interpersonal interactions, they fall short in positions of authority. Nonverbal acts and demonstrating deference are two ways women might unintentionally undermine their power and credibility. It is possible that many women, to fit more comfortably within traditional gender norms, may actively suppress their assertive tendencies. They mean one thing verbally yet convey another through their actions, leading to misunderstandings. Subtle manipulation can also arise from compensatory strategies such as unjustified, uneasy giggling, or punctuating a serious speech with a smile (Ariyani and Hadiani 73). To complement their already impressive nonverbal skills, women can train to express themselves more forcefully and convincingly, as every good leader should.
It is common knowledge that a woman can be as complex as a book. Her nonverbal communication is solid and honest. It is apparent whether she is feeling sad, angry, or happy. Unfortunately, in some professional settings, this quality may be detrimental. Being able to rein in and monitor one’s behavior is the bedrock of authority and credibility (Sari 91). Women are seen as emotionally unstable; therefore, others may see this behavior as overly demonstrative. Women have excellent nonverbal communication skills, but ironically, they can contribute to the spread of negative stereotypes and even become a social stigma. A woman’s authority can be undermined by her lack of control and highly expressive manner.
While men and women both struggle with accommodating interpersonal requirements, males tend to place less weight on the abilities necessary to do so. Men are less interested in reading the nonverbal environment or lubricating relationships but use love, hidden power, and control (Ayisi and Krisztina 52). Men value women’s interpersonal competence less than other people’s technical expertise.
Males are often considered masters of nonverbal communication, which is evident in how they carry themselves and interact with others. Without moderation (if they are excessively outspoken), they risk losing their authority and being insulted. A woman’s natural reaction to a positive life event, like a promotion at work, is to run home, bounce up and down, and shriek with delight. However, a man’s response to a promotion differs from that of a woman. Men lack the emotional range necessary to convey feelings of enthusiasm or delight.
It is essential to emphasize that women do not need to conform to stereotypical male behavior to exert authority and power. For example, trying to mimic men’s body language can backfire. By carefully monitoring and controlling her behavior, a woman can close the credibility gap between herself and the men around her (Sari 92). This is challenging since people’s awareness of nonverbal behaviors is lower than their understanding of spoken language patterns.
The micro-behaviors of women every day form the backbone of the macro-structure, as they uphold the status quo and determine who is perceived as powerful and who is seen as weak. These myriad interpersonal relationships are crucial to the broader political structure, which relies on them for support. The use of force, on one end of the spectrum, and socialization, or the nurturing of minds, on the other, represent examples of nonverbal cues used for social control.
Barriers
Disparities in communication between the sexes can lead to friction in both the business and family settings. The inability of the sexes to communicate effectively may be attributable to several aspects, encompassing, but not restricted to, interpersonal differences, societal stereotypes, and presumed gender roles. Having different expectations for men and women in society contributes to a wider gap between the sexes (Ayisi and Krisztina 54). It is vital to remember that not every man and woman is the same. The first step in building mutual understanding is identifying typical distinctions and parallels.
Relationship Course
Relationships are more important to women than work is to men. As a rule, women tend to focus on building relationships before applying them in a collaborative setting, whereas men often find this approach inefficient; in general, men tend to prefer social interaction through work. Due to these disparities, men and women are effectively separated in their ability to converse (Sari 92).
During tension, the divide between communication focused on getting things done and interaction centered on building relationships may widen. Women often broach the topic of a disagreement to maintain the relationship. It is common for men to take things personally and ignore how their actions could affect their relationships. The gap widens because women tend to be more emotional than rational.
Decision-Making Procedure
One common communication barrier between the sexes is a different approach to decision-making. Men tend to communicate regarding finished products, whereas women focus on the processes involved. Female leaders are more inclined to consult with their peers when problems develop at work (Ariyani and Hadiani 72). This could be seen as a flaw by a male leader who thinks he should be able to make decisions for his team without input from subordinates. Men tend to handle information internally, while women would rather have an open conversation about the subject. A woman could see a man’s quietness as a sign that he did not care about the topic or was withdrawing from the group.
Misunderstanding
Women’s body language is a means by which they validate the speaker. Nonverbal cues, in their view, show how seriously one is taking a discussion. Smiles, nods of the head, or making direct eye contact are all examples of such nonverbal communication. Male listeners are likelier to sit quietly and take in the presented information (Ayisi and Krisztina 53). When males do not provide any form of non-verbal confirmation, women often assume they are uninterested in or do not understand what is being said. Sometimes, a woman may need to elaborate or try to get a man interested in a conversation by repeating something twice. This could annoy most men, and some might even read it as a sign of a lack of confidence or strength on the part of the woman.
Uneven Participation
Unlike women, men are primarily information givers rather than message seekers. In gatherings with people of different sexes, women tend to focus on learning about the other members and actively listening to their perspectives. They are concerned with ensuring that everyone has a voice in a discussion. Men are typically the ones to take control of a conversation and interrupt a woman mid-sentence (Sari 92). Males may feel pressure to take charge of a conversation or show off their skills. When this happens, women are more likely to keep quiet or avoid the topic altogether.
Stereotyping
In general, a stereotype is a simplified and often distorted conception of a person, group, or concept. The inability to reason due to these biases causes people to make hasty judgments (Ariyani and Hadiani 69). Different social groups and sexes use diverse modes of expression. However, first impressions are sometimes formed based on a single meeting.
For instance, the common belief that women are inherently quiet is an example of a stereotype. However, when women speak their minds, their confidence is often misconstrued as haughtiness. These discriminatory attitudes towards women can have a detrimental effect on the culture of the workplace.
Gender Norms
Gender identity expectations are common in developing discriminatory practices based on sexual orientation and existing norms. Gender differences can be seen in nonverbal cues, including facial expressions, gestures, and body language (Ayisi and Krisztina 54). However, they are held to different standards of behavior, with gender norms playing a significant role in this scenario. In business, for instance, senior male leaders are often held to a higher standard than lower-level employees, especially regarding their assertiveness, tone of voice, and demeanor, including their gait. It is not suitable for society to categorize people and then judge them harshly if they do not fit those standards.
Overcoming Barriers
It is vital to feel welcome wherever one may be. People from all walks of life should be treated equally in the workplace, but this is not always the case. Several companies worldwide have made diversity and fairness within teams and departments top priorities in their efforts to address systemic issues. Many organizations have made it a policy to organize their teams and bring on new employees in line with the values of diversity and inclusion (Sari 90). Although there have been strides made to eliminate discrimination based on gender in the workplace, there are still obstacles that need to be overcome. The inability of persons of different sexes to communicate effectively hinders their ability to collaborate.
Unlearning gender stereotypes and social norms is a responsibility shared by individuals and groups alike. The only way to eliminate discrimination against women is for companies to implement procedures that ensure everyone is treated fairly (Ayisi and Krisztina 52). The goal should be to create an environment where everyone feels welcome, from the employment process to networking events. Employees come from various backgrounds, so it is reasonable to expect they will have different levels of expertise in every area. It is crucial to give them the proper education and assist them in unlearning harmful habits.
Conclusion
Understanding behavior plays a fundamental role in the rationale for researching gender differences in current interpersonal communication interactions. With the help of further development in the given topic and more review with a focus on scholarship gaps, it would be possible to better understand the reasons behind varying strengths in communication. This would also help in better understanding how people of various genders prefer to interact and the reasons behind this preference. Designing efficient strategies to address such issues can be facilitated by understanding the factors that influence verbal and nonverbal communication. In this sense, it was vital to answer questions on why people of different genders communicate differently and whether gender-specific communication approaches are real. Examining gender disparities offers profound insights into the subject and provides a foundation for further studies.
Works Cited
Albada, Kelly, et al. “Interaction Appearance Theory: Changing Perceptions of Physical Attractiveness through Social Interaction.” Communication Theory, vol. 12, no. 1, 2002, pp. 8-40.
Ambrester, Marcus, and Glynis Strause. A rhetoric of Interpersonal Communication. Waveland Press, 1984.
Anderson, Rob, et al., editors. Dialogue: Theorizing Difference in Communication Studies. SAGE Publications, 2003.
Anderson, Rob, et al., editors. The Reach of Dialogue: Confirmation, Voice and Community. Hampton Press, 1994.
Ariyani, Emma, and Dini Hadiani. “Gender Differences in Students’ Interpersonal Communication.” Responsible Education, Learning and Teaching in Emerging Economies, vol. 1, no. 2, 2019, pp. 67-74.
Arnett, Ronald, and Pat Arneson. Dialogic Civility in a Cynical Age: Community, Hope, and Interpersonal Relationships. SUNY Press, 1999.
Arnett, Ronald. “Interpersonal Praxis: The Interplay of Religious Narrative, Historicality, and Metaphor.” Journal of Communication & Religion, vol. 21, no. 2, 1998, pp. 141-163.
Arnett, Ronald. “Toward a Phenomenological Dialogue.” Western Journal of Communication, vol. 45, no. 3, 1981, pp. 201-212.
Arnett, Ronald. “What is Dialogic Communication? Friedman’s Contribution and Clarification.” Person-Centered Review, vol. 4, no. 1, 1989, pp. 42-60.
Ayisi, Daniel, and Tóth Krisztina. “Gender Roles and Gender Differences Dilemma: An Overview of Social and Biological Theories.” Journal of Gender, Culture and Society, vol. 2, no. 1, 2022, pp. 51-56.
Ayres, Joe. “Four Approaches to Interpersonal Communication: Review, Observation, Prognosis.” Western Journal of Speech Communication, vol. 48, no. 4, 1984, pp. 408-440.
Baxter, Leslie, and Barbara Montgomery. Relating: Dialogues and Dialectics. Guilford Press, 1996.
Baxter, Leslie. “A tale of Two Voices: Relational Dialectics Theory.” Journal of Family Communication, vol. 4, no. 4, 2004, pp. 181-192.
Berger, Charles. “The Covering Law Perspective as a Theoretical Basis for the Study of Human Communication.” Communication Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 1, 1977, pp. 7-18.
Braithwaite, Dawn, and Paul Schrodt, editors. Engaging Theories in Interpersonal Communication: Multiple Perspectives. 3rd ed., Routledge, 2021.
Cahn, Dudley, and Jack Hanford. “Perspectives on Human Communication Research: Behaviorism, Phenomenology, and an Integrated View.” Western Journal of Communication, vol. 48, no. 3, 1984, pp. 277-292.
Carter, Kathryn, and Mick Presnell, editors. Interpretive Approaches to Interpersonal Communication. SUNY Press, 1994.
Chichirez, Cristina-Mihaela, and Victor Purcărea. “Interpersonal Communication in Healthcare.” Journal of Medicine and Life, vol. 11, no. 2, 2018, pp. 119-122.
Cushman, Donald. “The Rules Perspective as a Theoretical Basis for the Study of Human Communication.” Communication Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 1, 1977, pp. 30-45.
Fritz, Janie. “Feminist Perspectives, Structuration Theory and Compliance-Gaining: An Exploratory Integration.” Speaker and Gavel, vol. 32, 1995, pp. 38-54.
Hall, Judith, et al., editors. The Social Psychology of Perceiving Others Accurately. Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Johnson, Amy, et al. “Relational Progression as a Dialectic: Examining Turning Points in Communication Among Friends.” Communication Monographs, vol. 70, no. 3, 2003, pp. 230-249.
Kimbrough, Amanda, et al. “Gender Differences in Mediated Communication: Women Connect More than do Men.” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 29, no. 3, 2013, pp. 896-900.
Miller, Gerald, and Mark Steinberg. Between People: A New Analysis of Interpersonal Communication. Science Research Associates, 1975.
Miller, Gerald. Explorations in Interpersonal Communication. Sage, 1976.
Monge, Peter. “The Systems Perspective as a Theoretical Basis for the Study of Human Communication.” Communication Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 1, 1977, pp. 19-29.
Morse, Ben, and Lynn Phelps, editors. Interpersonal Communication: A Relational Perspective. Burgess International Group, 1980.
Pearce, Barnett. “Metatheoretical Concerns in Communication.” Communication Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 1, 1977, pp. 3-6.
Pearce, Barnett. “Preface.” Communication Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 1, 1977, pp. 1-2.
Roloff, Michael, and Gerald Miller, editors. Interpersonal Processes: New Directions in Communication Research. Sage, 1987.
Roloff, Michael. “What an Interpersonal Communication Scholar Should Know.” Communication Monographs, vol. 75, no. 2, 2008, pp. 112-119.
Sari, Yulia. “The Urgency of Developing Trust and Interpersonal Communication Skills of Students through Role Playing.” Konselor, vol. 7, no. 3, 2018, pp. 89-94.
Stamp, Glen. “A Qualitatively Constructed Interpersonal Communication Model: A Grounded Theory Analysis.” Human Communication Research, vol. 25, no. 4, 1999, pp. 531-547.
Stephen, Timothy, and Teresa Harrison. “Interpersonal Communication, Theory, and History.” Communication Theory, vol. 3, no. 2, 1993, pp. 163-172.
Stewart, John. “Foundations of Dialogic Communication.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 64, no. 2, 1978, pp. 183-201.
Taylor, Charles. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Harvard University Press, 1989.