+ Page 29 + --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ####### ######## ######## ########### ### ### ## ### ## # ### # Interpersonal Computing and ### ### ## ### ## ### Technology: ### ### ## ### ### An Electronic Journal for ### ######## ### ### the 21st Century ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ## ### ISSN: 1064-4326 ### ### ### ## ### October 1996 ####### ### ######## ### Volume 4, Number 3-4, pp. 29-40 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Association for Educational Communications and Technology Additional support provided by Georgetown University University of Maryland, Baltimore County Northern Arizona University This article is archived as FERRIS IPCTV4N4 on LISTSERV@LISTSERV.GEORGETOWN.EDU -------------------------------------------------------------------------- WOMEN ON-LINE: CULTURAL AND RELATIONAL ASPECTS OF WOMEN S COMMUNICATION IN ON-LINE DISCUSSION GROUPS Sharmila Pixy Ferris William Paterson College ABSTRACT Researchers have predicted that the unique characteristics of computer- mediated communication would mitigate gender differences. The recent increase in participation of women on-line provides an opportunity to investigate this prediction. A review of the literature leads to the conclusion that women's communication in cyberspace often mirrors that of face-to-face communication, linguistically and relationally. However, on-line communities can offer women a unique communication opportunity, allowing for the development and display of a distinct relational and cultural style. INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE Computer-mediated communication (CMC) , while a relatively new medium, has grown rapidly over the past fifteen years and become the object of much research (for e.g., Bannon, Robinson & Schmidt, 1991; Jessup and Valacich, 1993). Early findings in computer-mediated communication (CMC) research found that CMC promoted social equality (Connolly, Jessup & Valacich, 1980; Kiesler, 1987; Sproull, 1991). Perhaps it was this finding that led many researchers to predict that CMC would democratize communication and mitigate gender differences . While this prediction was supported in part by some studies (Selfe & Meyer, 1991; Temple & Lipp, 1989), until recently no real opportunity to investigate the equalizing effects of CMC on gendered communication existed due to the low levels of female participation on-line as measured by their communication on the Internet. While much of the early research on CMC was conducted in artificial laboratory settings (Ferris, 1995), the findings of these studies have often been challenged as differing results have been found in field settings (Parks & Floyd, 1996). Communication on the Internet thus offers a better setting for the investigation of on-line communication than controlled experimental research In the past two decades of CMC, women's voices have been very limited (Frissen, 1992). The past few years, however, have seen a rapid rise in the numbers of women using CMC to communicate on-line. Recent reports put female participation on the Internet as high as 33% (Sherman, 1996a), while others report that such private commercial servers as Prodigy have a 40% female subscription rate (Braill, 1994). This significant increase in women's participation on-line offers an ideal opportunity to investigate whether CMC does indeed democratize communication, and break down gender barriers. This study proposes such an investigation, through a review of the literature supported by observation of women's communication in on-line discussion groups. + Page 30 + Discussion groups were chosen as the unit of observation because of their ubiquitous presence in cyberspace. The term 'discussion groups' includes the generally accepted categories of discussion lists and newsgroups. Some discussion groups focus on particular topics of discussion, others function in a bulletin board capacity, while yet others are the site of general discussion and allow for free airing of opinions. Discussion groups offer a convenient medium for observation as they are easily accessible and offer the opportunity for equal participation. While many participants remain observers, choosing to participate without actively engaging in discussion (in the idiom of the Internet, such participants are known as 'lurkers'), these groups can offer a sense of community. This is specially true of the moderated and unmoderated discussion groups known as 'listservs.' GENDERED FACE-TO-FACE COMMUNICATION In order to determine whether CMC does equalize communication and break down gender barriers, it appears expedient to first outline the characteristics of "gendered" communication. Gender, as opposed to biological sex, is a social construct (Graddol & Swan, 1989; Poynton, 1989). Language plays a crucial role in the creation of this social construct (Kramarae, 1981), and thus a consideration of gendered communication must begin with a consideration of gender differences in the use of language. Poynton (1989) provides an excellent summary of the empirical data on linguistic and lexico-grammatical differences between male and female language use. Some of these differences are provided below : Interruption: men interrupt women and not vice-versa in mixed-sex conversation. Topic choice: men may (and do) reject women's topic choices in mixed- sex conversation, while women will talk on topics raised by men. Speech act choice and realization: men use many more commands than women and tend to realize them congruently by means of the mood choice. Imperative: Women ...are much more likely to realize them incongruently, by using the Interrogative (Would you mind shutting the door?) ...or Declarative (I wonder if you would be so kind as to shut the door) . Hedges: women use more 'hedges' than men Slang: men use more slang than women. Swearing: even more than slang, this has been regarded as men's territory. Politeness markers: women are said to use these more than men. Intonation: among other characteristics, women have more vocal variety than men and are said to use the high rising termination, or question inflection, more than men. (pp. 70-73). + Page 31 + In addition to linguistic usage, there are gendered differences in relational use of conversation. Women display a greater personal orientation than men, focusing on the self, revealing thoughts and feelings, and interacting with others (Jaffe, Lee, Huang, & Oshagan). Research on conversation purpose, summarized by Maltz and Borker (1982) indicates that women use conversation primarily for negotiating and expressing relationships, while men use it as display. Men want to establish control, while women want to maintain interaction. Women are also relationally more focused on positive interaction and cooperation, thus being more socially supportive. GENDERED ON-LINE COMMUNICATION Certain characteristics of women's face to face (F2F) communication have been established by empirical research. The question of interest here is whether CMC affects women's communication and experiences on- line. Does cyberspace provide an environment that abolishes or diminishes the gender barriers, neutralizing or alleviating some gender-related communication differences? Or does communication on-line simply mirror social reality? To answer this question I will use triangulating methods: first, my own ethno-methodological observations of a week's postings on PSYBER-L (see below for more details). The units of analysis of the PSYBER-L postings are lexico-grammatical and conversational differences identified in the previous sections. These differences were empirically established in relational to face-to-face conversations; hence, in order to validate their application to on-line conversations, I also compare my own observations with the work of other researchers who have conducted studies in the area of gendered communication on-line. Such researchers include Ebben (1993), Herring (1994), and We (1993). The discussion group PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM is used here as the basis for observations as it is a relatively small, mixed-gender discussion group composed, for the main part, of psychology professionals and academics. The week selected for observation was chosen because one of the topics of discussion at the time appeared to invite participation from group members who had until then chosen to remain lurkers (listeners/readers rather than active contributors). A discussion of findings in gendered on-line communication follows. In the area of linguistic and lexico-grammatical characteristics of women's on-line communication , it appears from the studies of such researchers as Collins-Jarvis (95), Ebben (1993), Herring (1994), and We (93) that CMC does little to equalize differences in gendered communication. In fact, while CMC does appear to provide women some freedom to make their voices heard, it appears to exacerbate some of the differences in language use. Interruptions are less of an issue on- line due to the nature of the medium (even in synchronous communication there is a small time delay). This does work to give women 'speakers' a chance to say what they wish. However, it does not ensure that they are heard. Women's contributions are often ignored, downplayed, or criticized (Herring, 1994). The nature of CMC plays a role here, as it is easy to "ignore" unwanted communication by simply deleting messages, + Page 32 + or failing to make the active effort required to respond. It is also relatively easier to send critical messages on-line than F2F, as lack of physical presence appears to encourage negative responses. An area on-line that remains similar to F2F communication is topic choice. Yet topic choice remains a male prerogative on-line. Males monopolize on-line conversations, and even when women do contribute, they are often driven to silence by the adversarial style of male responses, either ceasing to post messages or withdrawing from the discussion (Collins-Jarvis, 1995; Herring, 1994). My observations support the findings of Herring (94) and We (93) in this area, as is evident in the week*s postings on PSYBER-L: of a total of 25 messages, over half were male (16 male to nine female). Even more significantly, topic choices were predominately male. Of the four topics under discussion (lurkers, language and reality on-line, newbies, and the nature of the discussion group), only one was initiated by a woman. The other three topics under discussion were initiated by males. Also, in spite of the fact that five of the postings came from the three new members, the discussion on "newbies" and the nature of the group was initiated by the sole male among the three. A more detailed analysis of the male-female interactions occurring are revealing. In the sole discussion initiated by a female, the manner of initiation was of interest: in a 120 word posting, a female began with the sentences: I am most intrigued by the lurkers. Every time I post to a list I cannot help but read it through their eyes, imagining myself in a movie of sorts, my letter being read by the crowd, but only commented on by the characters. Or, when I'm less profound, I'm in an open street theatre .... The message was of interest as it opened dialogue on the nature of lurkers and inspired three new (1 male, 2 female) members, who had been lurkers up to this point, to offer their reasons for prior non- participation. Interestingly, the regular contributors to the group did not respond to the original posting until after the "newbies" messages were posted, illustrating the tenet that even when women do initiate topics on-line, they are not always given the same weight or credence + Page 33 + as men's. Additionally, when the male regulars did respond to this short posting, the shortest of their responses was 300 words long, and went up to more than 1000 words. That is, the males' responses were from 2.5 to 8.3 times as long as the females' original message. Gender differences in on-line communication mirror some other characteristics prevalent in FtF communication. Research on FtF communication has found empirical support for the prevalence of differences in speech acts, hedges, and use of politeness markers in male-female conversations. Research on-line (Collins-Jarvis, 1995: Ebben, 1993; Herring, 1994, We, 1993) has found that such differences also exist on-line, albeit in a form altered by the medium. For example, men have been found to use an adversarial style on-line, while women utilize a more supportive and "attenuated" style. This means that men are more critical, sarcastic, self-distancing, and self- aggrandizing than women, making lengthier and more frequent postings. Women, on the other hand, are more apologetic, expressive of doubt, suggestive, appreciative, and building of community-building (Herring, 1994). My own observations on-line support these findings. For example, in the week of observation when a regular welcomed a female member with the words, " I am pleased you sought fit to enter the dialogue" the new female member addressed responded with an apology (even though the message appeared to be one of welcome), saying: This was not a personal attack on you. Please do not think it was. The use of the word "your" was generic throughout. My apologies if you thought this was aimed at you specifically. While gender differences in slang usage on-line are not significant, men still swear substantially more than women. The literature shows a disturbing factor introduced by on-line communication - - --that, in addition to the asocial swearing being more than usually profound and frequent, men's communication in cyberspace transgresses social usage further in that explicit and offensive sexual content abounds (Metz, 1995). A survey of 1150 women on-line found that 26% reported being sexually harassed in the past year (FeMiNa, 1996). In the group under observation such issues as sexual harassment were not evident, which could be accounted for by the professional and academic nature of PSYBER-L. Even in this group, however, language differences were evident in male use of such slang swearwords as 'bullshit.' + Page 34 + A final gender difference on-line is in women's use of emotext and emoticons. Emotext, or lexical substitutes for non-verbal cues, and emoticons, or the visual arrangement of text characters to symbolize emotions, are used by communicators on-line to compensate for lack of non-verbal cues (Jaffe et al., 1995). Although in the period of time that PSYBER-L was observed, these differences were not evident, women have been observed to use these cues more than men (Gurak, 1996). In addition to the continued existence of gendered differences, research finds that differences in relational factors also remain in cyberspace. Conversational purpose differs on-line as it does in FtF communication: men want to establish control, while women want to maintain interaction. When on-line women are more inclined than men to engage on-line in socio-emotional and relational patters of communication which might exhibit social interdependence (Jaffe et. al., 1995). This was very evident in the postings on PSYBER-L --women largely demonstrated a desire for continued interaction in the manner of their responses: all the women's contributions took the form of on- line dialogue (i. e., the originators' message were copied and responded to, portion by portion as illustrated below), while male contributions were more expository (with some dialogue, but much more uninterrupted discourse, often at length). An example of female response follows, presented as it appeared on screen. The text preceded by a double arrow (>>) indicates the original message, in this case from a new male member. The female responses are from a regular female member. >>I haven't seen anything about the psychology of participation in a listserv. As regards formal papers, not to mention books, so do I. As you might have spotted in my response to (name deleted), I might tell you a few case stories on informal leadership in lists from which we could work out setups for sociological experiments within lists if that's something you're after. ..... >>Given the nature of this group, I think that I have to be a lurker for a while until I can get a feel what is the real reason for this group Need there be a unique reason, fixed in advance? .... +Page 35 + >>I'll hang around for a while longer and see if anyone starts to discuss the psychology of listserv groups, but I'm not about to participate in a free for all, non-anonymous, self-help group therapy session with a mixture of professional and amateur therapists and no focused goals. I'm on the verge of unsubscribing since I'm not getting what I'm looking for. Great you *voiced* your disappointment, instead of unsubscribing silently; so we've got a chance to learn from you. THANK you for this your msg >>PS. This isn't intended to be flame bait. Hope you feel understood by me. You*re welcome here--and perhaps we can establish a thread on your topic. The example above also illustrates another difference between male-female communication on-line: women are also relationally more focused on positive interaction. Other research in the area support this finding -- Parks and Floyd (1996) found that women are significantly more likely than men to form personal relationships on- line, and the FeMiNa (1996) survey found that 43% of 1150 women respondents considered community an important reason for going on-line (specifically, 13% stated that their main reason for going on-line was for a sense of community, while an additional 30% stated that their main reason was to communicate (through e-mail). UNIQUE CULTURAL AND RELATIONAL ASPECTS OF WOMEN'S COMMUNICATION IN CYBERSPACE In spite of the finding that women's on-line communication suffers from the same problems and constraints as FtF communication, CMC is not without its benefits to women. The unique characteristics of CMC that sometimes exaggerated the gender differences in on-line communication can also work to provide women with a medium with great potential for the development of those cultural and relational aspects that are peculiarly theirs. Cyberspace allows women to create and maintain extended electronic communities, to network and socialize, to form relationships, and to provide support. Due to the predominance of men on the Internet, these characteristics of women's communication were almost impossible to find in practice (except under certain special circumstances, such as are outlined below). But with the growing numbers of women on-line comes a slow but steady establishment of women's spaces and women's voices. As yet, this is restricted to women-only groups on the Internet. Such groups include Goddesses on the Net, BizWomen, Womens' Wire, etc. Such groups are exclusionary in that membership is limited to women, sometimes enforced with strict screening and monitoring. Within the groups, though, can be seen an active implementation of those very characteristics that distinguish female communication--but here used to good purpose. +Page 36 + Of the women-only groups, an especially unique example is Webgrrls. Founded by Aliza Sherman in April 1995, this on-line group illustrates the best aspects of women's communication and relationships. To quote the header that accompanies every message from the group, Webgrrls "is a forum for women in or interested in new media to exchange job and business leads, mentor, intern, teach, and learn." As can be seen from this statement, Webgrrls primary purpose is that of networking, community, and support. The group uniquely demonstrates a positive and productive implementation of women's relational style in other ways too. For example, the group was simultaneously formed FtF and on-line. As its founder, states, "Webgrrls has the best of both the on-line and the real world" Sherman (1996b). It does this through regular, bi-monthly pot-luck meetings where members, share their needs, request help, network, and often attend a short course or lecture. The regular FtF meetings are another unique feature, illustrating women's social supportiveness and relational orientation. Other user and discussion groups do meet FtF, but generally do so well after relationships are established on-line (Hall, 1993; Parks & Floyd, 1996). That Webgrrls meets a real need is evidenced by their phenomenal growth --from six members in New York in April 1995, to over 200 today. Since that time 40 other chapters have also been established across America and worldwide. The success of this on-line group demonstrates that CMC can be successful in alleviating some of the problems of gendered communication --if only in providing a forum for women that spans space and time, letting women's voices be heard in a safe, accessible and supportive space. Webgrrls merits further study (as this researcher and others are currently engaged in) as it provides an opportunity to study the evolution of gendered communication in a unique environment. It is specially significant that of all the on-line discussion groups that have been researched, participated in, and observed, it was this all-women group that first fulfills Walther's (1992) prediction that CMC would not permanently hinder the development of interpersonal relationships as "the ways in which humans pursue these interpersonal functions are more robust than can be impeded for long by CMC." (p. 80). + Page 37 + CONCLUSION Although there are exceptions, as evidenced by such women-only groups as Webgrrls, the material presented in this paper largely indicates that communication on-line not only retains gender differences in communication, but that, far from mitigating gender differences, CMC sometimes exacerbates them. While the research in this area is still scant, it establishes quite clearly that the predictions made by early researchers must be modified when moved into a field setting. Although, "on the surface" cyberspace does appears to be friendly to women (We, 1993, p. 7 ), a deeper look reveals that rather than breaking down gender differences and creating greater equality, communication on-line often reflects the problems of gender communication in the everyday world. While I believe this to be evident, I do feel that it needs to be confirmed through more detailed observation and analysis. The observations cited here are sketchy indeed, and do not constitute much in the way of real support as, not only was the period of observation far too brief to demonstrate any conclusive evidence, but the observations were also used primarily to illustrate the research findings. While I do plan to continue this research and remedy these shortcomings this is an area that merits more attention than it is currently receiving, and I would welcome further research in the area. REFERENCES Bannon, L., Robinson, M., & Schmidt, K. (eds.) (1991). Proceedings of the second European Conference on computer supported cooperative work. Boston: Kluwer. Braill, S. (1994, Winter). Take back the net! On the Issues, 40-41. Collins, M. (1995). Networks and networking. In M. Collins and Z. L. Berge (Eds.), Computer mediated communication and the on-line classroom. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Collins-Jarvis, L. (1995, October). Explaining gender group discrimination in computer-mediated communication: A social identity approach. Paper presented at the meeting of the Organization for the Study of Communication, Language and Gender, Minneapolis, MN. Connolly, T., Jessup, L., & Valacich, J. (1990). Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Management Science, 36, 689-703. + Page 38 + Ebben, M. M. (1993, October). Women on the Net: An exploratory study of gender dynamics on the Soc. women computer network. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Organization for the Study of Communication, Language, and Gender, Tempe, AZ. FeMiNa. (1996). Electronic survey. Available: http://www.femina.com/ Ferris, S. P. (1995). An investigation of a role of computer mediated communication as a media choice in the facilitation of small group task performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania. Frissen, V. (1991). Trapped in electronic cages? Gender and new information technologies in the public and private domain: An overview of the research. Media, Culture, and Society, 14, 31-39. Graddol, D., & Swan, J. (1989). Gender voices. Cambridge, MA.; Basil Blackwell. Gurak, L. J. (1995, February). On Bob, Thomas, and other new friends: Gender in cyberspace. Computer Mediated Communication Magazine, 2, 12- 13. Hall, M. (1993, September). User groups take on the air of professional associations. Business First, 10, 19. Herring, S. (1994). Gender differences in computer-mediated communication: Bringing familiar baggage to the new frontier. Paper presented at the American Library Association Annual Convention, Arlington, TX. Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1978). The Network Nation. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Jaffe, J. M., Lee, Y., Huang, L., & Oshagan, H. (1995, May). Gender, pseudonyms and CMC: Masking identities and baring souls. Paper presented at the 45th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association. Jessup, L. M., & Valacich, J. S. (1993). Group support systems. New York; Macmillan. + Page 39 + Kiesler, S. (1987). Social aspects of computer environments. Social Science, 72, 23-28. Kramarae, C. (1981). Women and Men Speaking. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. A. (1982). A cultural approach to male- female miscommunication. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and Social Identity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Metz, J. M. (1995). Computer-mediated communication and the question of culture. New Jersey Journal of Communication, 3, 1-25. Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication, 46, 80-97. Poynton, C. (1989). Language and gender: Making the difference. New York: Oxford University Press Selfe, C., & Meyer, P. R. (1991). Testing claims for on-line conferences. Written Communication, 8, 162-192. Sherman, A. (1996a). Where the girls are. Available: http://www.cybergrrl.com/ under "Articles I have written." Sherman, A. (1996b). Interview with the founder of Webgrrls. Available: email spferris@frontier.wilpaterson.edu Sproull, L. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Temple, L., & Lipp, H. M. (1989). Gender differences and similarities in attitudes towards computers. Computers in Human Behavior, 5, 215- 226. Wagner, G. R., Wynne, B. E., & Mennecke, B. (19). Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction. Communication Research, 19, 52-90. + Page 40 + ------------------------------------------------------------------------ BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES: Sharmila Pixy Ferris (Ph.D., Pennsylvania State University) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at William Paterson College of New Jersey. A version of this paper was presented at the 87th Annual Eastern Communication Association in New York. The author would like to acknowledge her great debt to Gerry Phillips, who was instrumental in guiding her into this area of research. E-mail: spferris@frontier.wilpaterson.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Copyright Statement Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century Copyright 1996 University of Maryland Baltimore County and the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Copyright of individual articles in this publication is retained by the individual authors. Copyright of the compilation as a whole is held by the UMBC and AECT. It is asked that any republication of this article state that the article was first published in IPCT-J. Contributions to IPCT-J can be submitted by electronic mail in APA style to: Susan Barnes, Editor IPCT-J SBBARNES@PIPLELINE.COM or BARNES@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU