Gender and Gender Composition Differences in Initial Dyadic Interactions Chapter 3 of Strangers

A simple dyadic design F-F F-M M-M

Schematic diagram of the UT-Arlington Social Interaction Lab

Are men “clueless,” socially inept, inattentive and unmotivated interaction partners? “Clueless”: Unaware of the implicit rules and conventions of social interaction Socially inept: Incapable of performing the relevant behaviors Inattentive: Lack of awareness of the interaction partner’s thoughts, feelings, and behavior Unmotivated: Making a minimal effort

Socially inept, “tuned out” men?   Behavioral outcome measure F-F dyads F-M dyads M-M dyads Percentage of second-person pronouns used Number of verbal acknowledgements Number of smiles/laughs Duration of gazes Number of mutual gazes Duration of mutual gazes 16% 13.2 14.0 132.3 29.7 60.8 22% 10.8 10.7 97.1 19.8 34.0 18% 7.5 9.6 78.4 18.9 25.1

How does the behavior of women differ in the F-F and F-M dyad types? If the interactions in F-M dyads are less warm and involving than the interactions in F-F dyads, who is primarily responsible for that: the male members of the F-M dyads or their female partners? At first glance, the data in Ronen’s study seemed to pin the responsibility on the male partners. When we compared the behavior of the women in the F-F dyads with the women in the F-M dyads, we found that the women in the F-F dyads looked at their female partners much longer (an average of 132.3 seconds) than the women in the F-M dyads looked at their male partners (an average of only 86.3 seconds). In addition, the women in the F-F dyads reported liking their female partners significantly more (an average rating of 7.6 on a 10-point scale) than the women in the F-M dyads reported liking their male partners (an average rating of 6.4). The men were not similarly biased. The men in the F-M dyads liked their female partners nearly as much (an average rating of 6.8) as the men in the M-M dyads liked their male partners (an average rating of 7.2). What’s going on here? As interaction partners, were the men simply less likable and less deserving of attention than the women? 

How does the behavior of men differ in the M-M and F-M dyad types? That’s one possibility. However, other data suggest that it’s not that simple. When we compared the behavior of the men in the M-M dyads with the men in the F-M dyads, we found that the second group of men seemed to be the more interested and responsive interaction partners. Specifically, the men in the F-M dyads asked their female partners more questions (an average of 8.0) than the men in the M-M dyads asked their male partners (an average of 5.1). The men in the F-M dyads also acknowledged their female partners’ comments more often (an average of 11.6 times) than the men in the M-M dyads acknowledged their male partners’ comments (an average of 7.5 times). Finally, the men in the F-M dyads used a smaller percentage of third-person pronouns in their conversation (18%) than the men in the M-M dyads did (23%). This behavior often signals a desire to “personalize” the interaction by using third-person pronouns (he, she, they, them, etc.) significantly less and first- and second-person pronouns (me, you, etc.) significantly more. All of these additional findings suggest that the men in the F-M dyads were not behaving in a way that made them unlikable and undeserving of their partner’s attention. Instead, they appeared to be making a genuine effort to acknowledge and get to know their female partners.

How does the behavior of the women and the men differ in the F-M dyad type? This same conclusion is suggested by differences in how the women and the men in the F-M dyads responded to certain items on the post-interaction questionnaire. The male dyad members felt that the interaction was involving (an average rating of 7.0), thought that their female partners also felt that the interaction was involving (an average rating of 6.8), and believed that their female partners had a relatively strong need to communicate with them (an average rating of 6.7). However, the female partners rated the interaction as significantly less involving (an average rating of 6.0), believed that their male partners also found it less involving (an average rating of 5.7), and believed that their male partners had a relatively weak need to communicate with them (an average rating of 5.4). These data suggest that the men—who were “elevating their game” in terms of being interested and responsive—were not getting much credit for that from their female partners.

Interpreting these results Only one interpretation seems to account for the entire pattern of data: the women in the F-M dyads noticed that their interactions were relatively uninvolving (i.e., less involving than those of F-F dyads), but failed to recognize and appreciate the genuine effort that their male partners were making. Not thinking about how low the “baseline” level of involvement is in men’s same-sex interactions, the women apparently didn’t recognize or appreciate the fact that the men were making a real effort to “meet them halfway.” For their part, the men apparently failed to understand that their attempts to relate differently to a female stranger than to a male stranger (by asking more questions, providing more verbal acknowledgements, and reducing their references to third parties) wouldn’t be noticed by their female partners as long as the overall level of interactional involvement remained low.

Why should the overall level of interactional involvement in M-M dyads be so low? Are male strangers just poorly socialized oafs who are unable to get in sync with each other? Are they oblivious to the norms that govern socially appropriate behavior? Not at all. When we computed the average intraclass (i.e., inter-partner) correlations in thought-feeling content for the M-M and F-F dyads in previous studies, we discovered that the subjective experience of the male strangers was more similar than that of the female strangers. The difference between the men and the women was strongly evident in the total number of feelings and the total number of positive thoughts and feelings they reported, with the men being significantly more “in sync” with each other than the women were. The men’s greater subjective synchrony was also evident in the number of self- and partner-focused thoughts and feelings they reported, and in the total number of thoughts they reported.

Average intraclass correlations of different categories of thought-feeling content for the M-M and F-F dyads in two samples. Adapted from data reported by Ickes, Tooke,Stinson, Baker, and Bissonnette (1988).   Thought-feeling measure M-M dyads F-F dyads Number of thoughts Number of feelings Number of positive thoughts or feelings Number of neutral thoughts or feelings Number of negative thoughts or feelings Number of self-focused thoughts or feelings Number of partner-focused thoughts or feelings .26 .32 .36 .25 .35 .16 -.02 -.27 .04 .11 .20 -.18 .14

To put it simply, the male strangers seemed to be more cognitively and emotionally attuned to each other than the female strangers were. Our initial impulse might be to resist this conclusion, and to argue that it simply doesn’t make sense. After all, women are supposed to be more attuned to each other than men are—aren’t they? My answer to this question is: Not in initial interactions, they aren’t. In initial interactions, there are two plausible reasons why the men’s thoughts and feelings should be more in sync than the women’s. Both of these reasons reflect the men’s greater concern about keeping their initial interaction from becoming too warm and involving. A man who expresses “too much” warmth and involvement in an initial interaction with a male stranger may be perceived as the weaker, more vulnerable, and lower-status member of the pair. A man who appears “too” warm and accepting of a male stranger may be perceived as expressing homosexual interest.

Do men and women come from different planets? In general, the research findings show that men and women are far more similar than different in their interaction behavior. For example, in our studies of initial F-M interactions, we have found that the only consistent behavioral difference between the male and female partners is that the men display more “open” and relaxed body postures than the women do. And that’s it. The women in F-M dyads do tend to smile and laugh a bit more than the men, but this difference is significant in some studies but not others. Even Deborah Tannen’s (1990) claim that there are distinctive differences between “men’s speech” and “women’s speech” turns out to be either exaggerated, overstated, or simply not true. Men and women are equal-status citizens of Planet Earth.

Summary and Conclusions In summary, the data do not support the view of men being “clueless,” insensitive, or unmotivated interaction partners. They also do not support the view of men as trying to dominate or “pull rank” on women. Instead, they reveal men as people who are struggling to meet the expectations that apply to them in interactions with same-sex versus opposite-sex strangers. More specifically, they are people who are trying to establish the “right” level of warmth and involvement with their new interaction partner, while at the same time trying to protect themselves from being evaluated negatively. Men appear to be just as “tuned in” as women are to the thoughts and feelings of their interaction partners, if not more so.