This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Lituchy, T. R. Articles by Wiswall, W. J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Role of Masculine and Feminine Speech Patterns in Proposal Acceptance

A Laboratory Study

Nagoya University of Commerce and Business Administration

Wendy J. Wiswall

University of Arizona

Women with feminine speech patterns (i.e., use of tag questions, modals, intensifiers, and numeral approximations) are seen as less confident, less assertive, and less believable than women with masculine speech patterns. The present study examined how masculine and feminine speech patterns affect the acceptance by superiors of decisions made by male and female subordinates. Seventy-nine male and female students listened to a tape recording of a subordinate's proposal for a new electronic game. The results demonstrated that the proposals of subordinates with masculine speech patterns were more likely to be accepted by male listeners, whereas female listeners were not influenced by the speech patterns.

Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 4, 450-465 (1991)
DOI: 10.1177/0893318991004004003


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. J. Wall and P. Gannon-Leary A Sentence Made by Men: Muted Group Theory Revisited European Journal of Women's Studies, February 1, 1999; 6(1): 21 - 29. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. E. Zorn and M. T. Violanti Communication Abilities and Individual Achievement in Organizations Management Communication Quarterly, November 1, 1996; 10(2): 139 - 167. [Abstract]