Perceived A Gentic and Communal Behavior in Mixed-Sex Group Interactions

Abstract

Twenty-six male and 26 female undergraduates participated in four-person mixed-sex group discussions. After each of three discussions in which a consensus was required, each person in the group rated the other members on their degree of talkativeness, on the quality of their expressed ideas, and on the degree of their concern for other's feelings. Results showed that sex role orientation alone predicted task-orientation; individuals of both sexes who had high masculinity scores on the BSRI were perceived to have talked more and to have had good ideas. Gender and sex role orientation predicted warm socioemotional behavior: Females and individuals with high femininity scores were judged to have been more concerned about group members' feelings. The prediction that androgynous individuals would exhibit the greatest behavioral flexibility (perform both task and socioemotional behaviors) was marginally supported.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson, L. R. , & Blanchard, P. N. (1982). Sex differences in task and social-emotional behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 3, 109-139.

Baird, J. E., Jr. (1976). Sex differences in group communication: A review of relevant research. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 62, 179-192.

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.

Bem, S. L. (1977). On the utility of alternative procedures for assessing psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 196-205.

Carbonell, J. L. (1984). Sex roles and leadership revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 44-49.

Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to the famous dictum. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 389-407.

Hull, C. H. , & Nie, N. H. (Eds.). (1981). SPSS update: New procedures and facilities for releases 7-9. New York: McGraw-Hill.

10.

Lockheed, M. E. , & Hall, K. P. (1976). Conceptualizing sex as a status characteristic: Applications to leadership training strategies. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 111-124.

11.

Meeker, B. F. , & Weitzel-O'Neill, P. A. (1977). Sex roles and interpersonal behavior in task-oriented groups. American Sociological Review, 42, 91-105.

12.

Megargee, E. I. (1969). Influence of sex roles on the manifestation of leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 377-382.

13.

Porter, N. , Geis, F. L. , Cooper, E. , & Newman, E. (1985). Androgyny and leadership in mixed-sex groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 808-823.

14.

Schneier, C. E. , & Bartol, K. M. (1980). Sex effects in emergent leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 341-345.

15.

Schutz, W. C. (1960). FIRO: A three-dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

16.

Spence, J. T. , & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.

17.

Spence, J. T. , Helmreich, R. L. , & Stapp, J. (1974). The Personal Attributes Questionnaire: A measure of sex role stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 4, 43 pp.

18.

Spillman, B. , Spillman, R. , & Reinking, K. (1981). Leadership emergence: Dynamic analysis of the effects of sex and androgyny. Small Group Behavior, 12, 139-157.

19.

Thayer, R. E. (1967). Measurement of activation through self-report. Psychological Reports, 20, 663-678.

20.

Wong-McCarthy, W. J. , Jose, P. E. , & Crosby, F. (1980, May). With regard to speakers, high masculinity and high femininity is not androgyny. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association Meeting, Acapulco, Mexico.

21.

Wood, W. , & Karten, S. J. (1984, August). Sex differences in interaction style as a product of perceived sex differences in competence. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.