Men and Women in Interaction: Reconsidering the Difference.

By Elizabeth Aries. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996, 286 pages. Cloth, $45.00; Paper, $18.95.

Reviewed by Kathryn N. Black, Ph.D., Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN 47907-1364, and Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0068.

Both scholars and the general public are interested in the issue of whether there are differences between the sexes. General interest in this question was demonstrated by the recent and continued best seller status of books by Deborah Tannen, whose doctorate is in communications, and John Gray, whose doctorate is in psychology. Tannen (1990) argued that men and women entered into conversations using a different set of "rules" and that they interpreted the other differently. She proposed that the different approaches needed to be understood to avoid problems in conversation and that one approach (e.g., women's emphasis on intimacy) should not be considered superior to another. However, Tannen's 1994 book about communication in the workplace does suggest that there may be some important and possibly negative consequences associated with sex differences in conversational style. John Gray has largely restricted his considerations to romantic interactions, but he has based his approach on a more inclusive claim: "Not only do men and women communicate differently but they think, feel, perceive, react, respond, love, need, and appreciate differently They almost seem to be from different planets, speaking different languages" (Gray, 1992, p. 5). Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, available only in hardback, was a #1 best seller for weeks. At the time of this writing, the book was still #17 on the best seller list. Mars and Venus in the Bedroom (1995), which begins "He wants sex. She wants romance" (p. 1) and continues "it is sex that allows a man to feel his needs for love, while it is receiving love that helps a woman to feel her hunger for sex" (p. 2), was also a best seller.

Tannen and especially Gray both rely heavily on anecdotal evidence, although there certainly is empirical evidence supporting their position that the sexes differ in communication. For example, in 1987, Elizabeth Aries reviewed the data on gender and communication and concluded that statistically significant differences arose across a variety of interaction contexts and research methodologies. Aries' present book, Men and Women in Interaction, differs from the prior review not only in that it includes additional research but, more importantly, in that she considers not just statistical significance but also effect size and the percentage of variance explained by gender. Fortunately, the field now has a number of meta-analyses available. Additional aspects of her summative analysis will be elaborated following a summary of the content.

In six of the eight chapters Aries reviews distinct literatures. Two are concerned with behavior in groups, including whether individuals demonstrate task or expressive roles and who is dominant. Both men and women are highly task oriented in groups, although men devote 8% to 15% more of their behavior to task activity. Among the conclusions is that although men are more likely to act as leaders at the beginning of group interactions, with time, both sexes are equally likely to become leaders. In these chapters Aries points out important variables that interact with gender and that we need to be aware of before interpreting any reported study. Chapters on interruptions, language use, and content follow. Each chapter supports the statement that although there are often statistically significant sex differences, they are so small that they explain a minuscule amount of variance and that the response distributions for the two sexes overlap greatly. Gender, she finds, generally accounts for less than 10% of the behavior in most studies.

In Chapter 7 she considers gender stereotypes and the perception and evaluation of participants in interaction. The literature in this area leads to the not unexpected conclusion that because of gender stereotypes, perceptions are not always accurate. Again, as in other areas, stereotypes seem to be evoked more in situations when gender is a salient issue in interaction. Stereotypes also have a prescriptive role, and those persons who violate our expectations about how to talk may pay a price in how they are evaluated.

The final chapter is concerned not just with conclusions but with explanations. Aries argues that for all areas she has considered, the research evidence permits multiple interpretations, although she is insistent that the data reveal that similarities between men and women are far greater than differences. She emphasizes situational variability of gender differences. Particular kinds of variation have been used to support the main interpretations of differences.

For example, the two-culture approach specifies that boys and girls have been differentially socialized and therefore have different individual characteristics; this approach predicts more extreme gender differences in single-sex than mixed-sex groups. Other theories, e.g., social role theory and expectation states theory, emphasize the importance of power, role, and status in determining what behaviors will be exhibited by the sexes. They suggest that if individuals have higher status or are in positions of power, they will exhibit what we have thought of as the masculine style. Some alternative interpretations have suggested that the reasons women in positions of power do not differ from men is because the ones who are capable of assertive, masculine approaches have self-selected for this work. These approaches emphasize that differences are not enduring dispositions and that gender differences will appear or not, depending upon the particular situation. This certainly fits with the general finding that men and women exhibit the least amount of difference in laboratory settings. Let Aries summarize:

Men and women are capable of

displaying both masculine and feminine

styles of interaction, and the style they

display depends upon their status, role,

gender identity, and interaction goals, as

well as on a variety of other situational

variables. Stereotyped beliefs have the

power to become self-fulfilling

prophecies for behavior. The stronger

our belief in gender differences, the more

firmly we will keep current gender

arrangements in place, arrangements that

afford greater opportunities and

privileges to men. (p. ix)

Does this mean that Gray and Tannen are wrong? I have recently read reports on Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus done by about 60 undergraduates, primarily female psychology majors in a class on gender. Almost universally these students told me that this was one of the most helpful and descriptively accurate books that they had read; most had asked or were intending to ask their romantic partners to read the book as well. How do we explain this discrepancy between Aries' summary, cited previously, and the conclusions of consumers of the Gray, or Tannen, books? I suggest that there is not necessarily a disagreement.

One of the major conclusions of this field is that differences are greatly influenced by the particular situation. The scientific literature reviewed by Aries does not really concern itself with interactions in long-term romantic relationships. A body of evidence concerning self-disclosure shows no sex differences for non-intimate concerns. Major sex differences do emerge for intimate conversations. Women self-disclose most with other women. Interestingly, when instructed to reveal feelings and emotions to best friends in a laboratory, men can do so, even with men. Researchers need to distinguish between what the sexes can do and what they most likely do ecologically. Before we can conclude that Gray and Tannen are generalizing from a minority sample, we need an analysis like that of Aries' dealing with the available literature on marital communication. I suspect that it would also be fruitful to examine more closely the nature of interaction in beginning romances. I would also like to see future researchers pay more attention to the influence of other roles. For example, do unemployed women as compared to women in average or high paying jobs behave differently in romantic interactions?

Although this book, reasoned and empirical, is not likely to be a best seller like those of Gray and Tannen, I hope that it becomes known among people who teach courses in gender and for those sexologists concerned about communication between the sexes.

References

Aries, E. (1987). Gender and communication. In P. Shaver & C. Hendrick (Eds.), Sex and gender (pp. 149-176). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus. New York: Harper Collins. Gray, J. (1995). Mars and Venus in the bedroom: A guide to lasting romance and passion. New York: Harper Collins.

Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: William Morrow.

Tannen, D. (1994). Talking from 9 to 5: How women's and men's conversational style affect who gets heard, who gets credit, and what gets done at work. New York: William Morrow.