Xiaotong Xi, Jullie Gu, Yaruo Tang, Scarlet Gu
This research explores Tannen’s original idea of report and rapport talk on gendered communication under a more modern context by investigating the conversational styles of college students aged 18-25. While previous research conducted by Tannen mainly utilized qualitative observational case studies, this research gathered quantitative data on gendered patterns in a conversational style by conducting surveys on 72 participants and 3 observational studies with detailed conversational data recorded. The research findings from both categories indicate that women’s conversational styles approach rapport talk more frequently by communicating with a tentative communication style and empathetic tone and topics surrounding personal experience. On the other hand, men approach report talk by using an assertive communication style, with conversation topics surrounding their own expertise and factual information.
[expander_maker id=”1″ more=”Read more” less=”Read less”]
Introduction and Background
People grew up with the expectation to adhere to different socially constructed labels. Men and women grew up under different expected gender roles, thus developing different gender-based cultures. This research explores the variations in communication styles fostered by the different cultures between men and women. In the book “You Just Don’t Understand,” Tannen explored the phenomenon that women intend to pursue intimate connections while men intend to build status in communication, which is further referred to as rapport vs. report talk (Tannen, 2007). To be more precise, our research defines rapport talk as a conversational style with features including a tentative communication style, topics surrounding personal feelings, and an empathetic tone; and report talk as a communication style of assertive tone, nonverbal cues to assert dominance, and topics surrounding personal expertise and factual information.
Elaborating on Tannen’s previous qualitative approach, our research aims to explore gendered patterns of gendered communication under modern contexts through quantitative methods, targeting the research population as college students aged 18-25. To quantify the data, this research collected survey responses and conversational elements from observations, categorized them as either rapport or report talk features, and compared the frequency of these features that appear in the communications for both genders.
To investigate the research question, “To what extent do women pursue intimate connections within communications regarding friendship while men pursue status?” We surveyed 72 effective participants on communication style and content-related questions. The survey supplemented observations on three conversations between friend groups and gathered quantitative data. Based on the research data, men perform report talk that establishes status more frequently, while women are more inclined to use rapport talk that builds intimate connections.
Methodology
The research first conducted surveys to gather data from 100 college students aged 18-25. The survey consists of 16 questions to examine cross and same-gendered communications, including analyzing patterns of frequency, length, and responses to specific scenarios, categorizing answers based on the rapport and report talk elements, and recording the frequency they occurred (Martin Terre Blanche et al., 2006).
The research also conducted three real-life observations to analyze the gendered pattern in conversation under more natural and authentic contexts. Conversations were recorded but presented with made-up names. Participants were selected from survey respondents. Conversations were coded with different elements that fall into rapport or report talk category.
Analysis – Survey
Due to the small sample size and potential diversity of non-binary gender, our research focused on the population who identifies as male (48%) or female (52%). 72 out of 100 were considered effective data, excluding participants outside the age range (18-25) and non-binary gender (Reiter, 2017).
As shown in figure 2, over 80% of participants had little to no knowledge about gendered communication, reducing the barrier of choosing the most appropriate answers; however, gendered communication patterns are never new, as shown in figure 3, female and male had completely different reactions towards Rachel and Ross sharing their kiss from the beloved show Friends (Crane, 1995).
Figure 4 shows the top 3 chosen topics participants reckon to recurrently talk about. Among females, the most discussed topics include school life, gossiping, hobbies, and entertainment. Most male communications depicted school life, sports, self-disclosure, and prospective future plans. As anticipated, females chose intimate topics, while males did talk more about sports and future plans. Surprisingly, self-disclosure – a sign of intimacy and connection, also appeared frequently among males. Opposite-gendered communication topics are extremely similar to patterns of same-gendered communication.
However, the frequency of topics may be too broad, and the selection of topics could be biased even with support from past literature reviews. Therefore, the participants were given a short, explicit situation to choose their most likely reaction.
As demonstrated by comparing figures 5 and 6, men and women have completely different attitudes towards gossiping. 51% of the male respondents have a positive or neutral attitude toward gossiping, while 62% of the female respondents reacted positively. From figure 4, 66% of the male and 92% of the female respondents have chosen to gossip as a commonly discussed topic. Even though participants knew the survey was anonymous, untruthful answers may still be chosen (Manza, 2018). Therefore, the survey is applied as supplementary material for later observations.
Analysis – Observation
Quantitative Analysis
The data collected demonstrates an explicit distinction in communication styles between genders. We categorized various features under report talk or rapport talk, as labeled in the x-axis of figures 7 and 8 (Klinetob & Smith, 1996). To be more precise, the use of direct and assertive communication styles includes declarative statements or giving direct orders and less polite or deferential language, making direct requests, or stating their opinions without apology. For example, “I’m absolutely certain…” “Trust me, I know what I’m talking about…” “Let me tell you…”. Nonverbal cues to assert dominance or authority can be implied by taking up more physical space. Indirect and tentative communication style refers to hedge words or phrases like “kind of” or “sort of” or more polite or deferential language, such as asking questions instead of making statements or using euphemisms instead of direct language.
Male participants in the study used more direct and assertive communication styles than female participants, who used more indirect and tentative ones. Regarding report talk features, male participants were found to interrupt others more frequently than female participants. In addition, male participants were observed using nonverbal cues to assert dominance or authority, such as taking up more physical space. Female participants were found to use more rapport talk features. They were observed acknowledging, understanding, and connecting with others more frequently than male participants.
Female participants used more indirect and tentative communication styles, such as hedge words or phrases and deferential language. Regarding nonverbal cues, female participants were more likely to have physical contact to establish a connection with others.
However, communication styles can vary significantly between individuals. The data collected in our research does not suggest that all male or female individuals use the same communication styles (Locander & Ladik, 2017). Nevertheless, the data indicate differences in communication styles between genders, supporting the rapport and report talk theory.
Qualitative Analysis – Conversation A
From extract A; male participants exhibit more report talk features by making direct statements and offering their opinions, while all three female participants utilize more rapport talk features by acknowledging and supporting others, expressing empathy and understanding, and using more indirect and tentative language.
Ben and Lucas both exhibit more report talk features by offering their opinions and making direct statements about friendship. Ben shares his personal experience of a friendship that ended in a falling out, and Lucas shares his perspective on cutting ties and moving on from toxic relationships. Both men contribute to the discussion by offering their thoughts on maintaining friendships as people’s lives change over time:
Females, as shown in A-2, tend to use more rapport talk features by building connections and supporting others. Amy introduces the topic of friendships ending and asks the group if they’ve experienced this before. Sophie shows empathy for Ben’s experience and emphasizes the importance of working through disagreements and maintaining friendships. Amy also acknowledges Ben’s and Lucas’s perspectives, showing she values their contributions to the conversation. Overall, extract A demonstrates a balance between report talk and rapport talk (Taylor, 2003).
Qualitative Analysis – Conversation B
From extract B, male participants Chris and John exhibit report talk features by interrupting others and making direct statements. For example, Chris interrupts Maggie to assert his opinion on the best way to maintain friendships:
As from extract B-2, female participants, Maggie and Emma, use more rapport talk features. They acknowledge and support others, like when Maggie expresses empathy for Chris’s recent stress at work. They also use more indirect and tentative language, such as when Emma suggests a possible activity for the group but asks for others’ opinions before making a final decision:
Participants also differ in the level of engagement, male participant John speaks the most in conversation B, contributing to almost half of the number of turns. Female participant Maggie, who spoke the most in conversation A, spoke the least in this conversation and only contributed 10% of the total turns.
Conclusion and Discussion
Overall, this research finding aligns with Tannen’s argument that ‘men perform report talk while women perform rapport talk.’ The results also corroborate the previous hypothesis regarding the difference in gendered communications. Signs of report and rapport talk are revealed through both survey data and observational conversations. Differences in communication styles and content may be related to gender and cultural norms; men are socialized to be more assertive and competitive, while women are socialized to be more nurturing and supportive.
Wider implications of our study include: Individuals could reduce the chances of miscommunication and understand each other fluently in the future by conducting more in-depth and variant social exchanges. Employers can adopt workplace communication strategies to reduce potential discriminatory acts. Businesses and social media platforms, or products with targeted audiences could adjust their plans and features accordingly, improving user engagement (Gunter, 2009).
References
Crane, D. (1995, November 6). Friends – Season 2 (No. 8) [TV – series]. NBC.
Gamble, T. K., & Gamble, M. W. (2020). The Gender Communication Connection. Milton: Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367822323.
Gunter, R. (2009). THE EMERGENCE OF GENDERED PARTICIPATION STYLES IN SCIENCE-RELATED DISCUSSIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR WOMEN’S PLACE IN SCIENCE. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 15(1), 53–75. https://doi.org/10.1615/jwomenminorscieneng.v15.i1.40
Klinetob, N. A., & Smith, D. A. (1996). Demand-Withdraw Communication in Marital Interaction: Tests of Interspousal Contingency and Gender Role Hypotheses. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58(4), 945–957. https://doi.org/10.2307/353982
Locander, W. H., & Ladik, D. M. (2017). CEO Tweet Behavior: The Use of Metaphors and Gendered Communication Style. Journal of Managerial Issues, 29(4), 365–379. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45176558
Manza, J. (2018). The sociology project. Pearson Canada Inc.
Martin Terre Blanche, Durrheim, K., & Painter, D. (2006). Research in practice: applied methods for the social sciences. University Of Cape Town Press.
Reiter, B. (2017). Theory and methodology of exploratory social science research. Ttu-Ir.tdl.org. https://hdl.handle.net/2346/86610
Tannen, D. (2007). You Just Don’t Understand. William Morrow Paperbacks.
Taylor, F. (2003). Content Analysis and Gender Stereotypes in Children’s Books. Teaching Sociology, 31(3), 300–311. https://doi.org/10.2307/3211327
[/expander_maker]