tent speech or content-filtered speech) and visual (facial expressions) channels .... masculinity-femininity. M. F. M-F. Excess M. Standard-. Content speech. -.12.
Copyright 1982 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-3514/82/4203-0548S00.75
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1982, Vol. 42, No. 3, 548-556
Masculinity-Femininity and Encoding of Nonverbal Cues Richard S. DeFrank Miron Zuckerman University of Houston University of Rochester Nancy H. Spiegel and Deborah T. Larrance University of Rochester The within-sex relationship between masculinity-femininity and accuracy of encoding (sending) nonverbal cues was examined in three studies. Encoding was operationally defined as either intentional expression of affect or involuntary "leakage" of affect that senders attempt to mask. Both auditory (standard-content speech or content-filtered speech) and visual (facial expressions) channels were examined. More accurate encoders of intentional cues in both channels scored higher on femininity and lower on masculinity. Auditory leakage was also positively correlated with femininity and negatively correlated with masculinity. Facial leakage was not correlated with the masculinity-femininity measures. Because the1 face is a highly controlled channel, facial leakage may be a relatively poor indicator of encoding ability and thus insensitive to the individual differences tapped by the masculinity-femininity measures.
Sex differences in abilities to decode (judge) and encode (express) nonverbal cues have been examined in numerous studies. Recent quantitative summaries of this research domain have established that females are superior to males in both decoding and encoding skills (Hall, 1978, 1979, 1980). Several explanations for these gender differences have been offered (e.g., Hall, 1979), but there is only sparse evidence to support any of them. One hypothesized rationale for females' superiority in nonverbal skills is based on the relationship between such skills and the gender role stereotypes of masculinity and femininity. The masculinity stereotype is associated with such traits as efficacy, instrumentality, and control; femininity is characterized by such traits as expressivity, supportiveness, and interpersonal sensitivity (Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, & Rosenkrantz, 1972; Parsons, 1955; Spence & Helmreich, 1978). Clearly, these genderrelated attributes are consistent with gender differences in nonverbal skills. A simple test Requests for reprints should be sent to Miron Zuckerman, Department of Psychology, University of Rochester, River Station, Rochester, New York 14627.
548
of the masculinity-femininity hypothesis would be to examine the relationship between measures of gender role and nonverbal abilities. Hall and Halberstadt (1981) reviewed 11 studies that included such tests for decoding. Overall, the within-sex correlations were small and nonsignificant. Unexpectedly, however, there was a tendency for masculinity to be positively correlated with decoding, particularly for college-age and older subjects. This evidence suggests that the feminine person is not necessarily a better decoder than the masculine one is. Although gender role does not adequately explain sex differences in decoding, it may explain sex differences in encoding. Perhaps it is the active expression of nonverbal cues, rather than the relatively passive reading of other people's expressions, that is reinforced according to one's gender role. It should also be noted that encoding and decoding are only minimally correlated (average r of 17 studies = .13; DePaulo & Rosenthal, 1979a), thus allowing differential relationships between these abilities and gender role. However, there are various modes of encoding and, consequently, different conceptions of encoding ability. A sender may pose a particular expression or may react spon-
MASCULINITY-FEMININITY AND ENCODING
taneously, relatively unaware,of the message communicated. A sender may also try to deceive observers by either suppressing expressions or displaying affects other than those experienced. Hence, it is necessary to specify which type of encoding mode is related to gender role: the intentional posing, the spontaneous reaction, or the involuntary "leakage" (cf., Ekman & Friesen, 1969) of true affect seeping through the nonverbal cover-up. To the extent that the feminine person engages in the expression of affect more often, he or she may become more skilled at sending posed or intentional cues. Furthermore, the skilled poser may be a better sender of spontaneous cues, because posing and spontaneous encoding are correlated (Cunningham, 1977; Zuckerman, Hall, DeFrank, & Rosenthal, 1976; Zuckerman, Larrance, Hall, DeFrank, & Rosenthal, 1979). On the other hand, the relationship between masculinity-femininity and nonverbal leakage is more difficult to predict, if only because the relationship between leakage and either posing or spontaneous encoding has not been previously investigated. One line of reasoning suggests that if the tendency to leak information is positively correlated with accuracy of encoding in the two other sending modes, leakage may also be positively correlated with femininity. Conversely, if leakage is negatively correlated with encoding accuracy in the two other modes, it may be negatively correlated with femininity. The present study examined the relationship of masculinity-femininity with nonverbal encoding using three sets of data, which also served to test other hypotheses not relevant to this paper. The subjects in all studies filled out Spence and Helmreich's (1978) Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ), which is a measure of the femininity-masculinity dimension. JTwo other paper-andpencil measures of encoding ability—the Perceived Encoding Ability scale (PEA; Zuckerman & Larrance, 1979) and the Affective Communication Test (ACT; Friedman, Prince, Riggio, & DiMatteo, 1980)— were administered in some of the studies. Finally, all subjects performed a variety of encoding tasks. Thus, it was possible to ex-
549
amine the relationship between masculinityfemininity and several modes of encoding as well as to control for subjects' self-reports of their sending ability. Study 1 Method Subjects. Seventy-eight male undergraduates participated in a study of communication and interaction styles (DeFrank, 1980) in partial fulfillment of an introductory psychology-course requirement. Paper-and-pencil scales. All subjects filled out the PAQ, a short version of the PEA, and the ACT. The PAQ version used in all the present studies consists of 24 four-point items, which are divided into 3 eightitem subscales: masculinity (M), femininity (F), and masculinity-femininity (M-F). The M and F subscales measure traits that are stereotypically more characteristic of males and females, respectively, but socially desirable in both sexes. The M-F subscale contains items that are socially desirable for one sex but not for the other. High scores on the M and M-F subscales indicate masculine responses; high scores on the F subscale indicate feminine responses. For the analyses conducted in the present studies, the F score was subtracted from the M score, resulting in a fourth masculinity-femininity indicator, labeled "Excess M." High scores on Excess M indicate the presence of masculine and the absence of feminine responses (for more complete information on the PAQ and its correlates, see Spence & Helmreich, 1978). The Perceived Encoding Ability scale used in the present study was a short 16-item version (PEA1) of the original 49-item PEA scale. The PEA1 includes items such as "People can usually tell when I am angry from my tone of voice" and "I have been told that almost no one ever knows how I feel about things." Thus, the respondents were asked directly about their sending ability. Each item is rated on a 7-point scale; higher scores on the PEA indicate a high level of perceived encoding ability. (For a more detailed description of the development and subsequent testing of the PEA, see Zuckerman & Larrance, 1979.) The ACT is composed of 13 nine-point items, including the following examples: "When I hear good dance music, I can hardly keep still" and "I like to remain unnoticed in a crowd." Thus, the respondents were asked to describe behaviors and/or affects that appear to characterize highly expressive persons, resulting in a more subtle and less direct measurement of encoding. High scores on the ACT indicate a high level of perceived expressiveness. (For further discussion of the ACT and its correlates, see Friedman et al., 1980.) Encoding task. Subjects were asked to imagine one of four different situations, each formed by the crossing of two affective dimensions: dominant-submissive and positive-negative. Thus, there was one dominant-positive situation (expressing exhilaration after an unexpected triumph), one dominant-negative situation (expressing strong dislike), one submissive-positive situation (telling a friend you need his or her help), and one
550
ZUCKERMAN, DEFRANK, SPIEGEL, AND LARRANCE
Table 1 Study 1: Correlations of Nonverbal Encoding With Measures of Masculinity and Femininity (*i = 78) Channel Measures of masculinity-femininity M F M-F Excess M
Note. M = masculinity; F culinity-femininity. *p < .001.
556
ZUCKERMAN, DEFRANK, SPIEGEL, AND LARRANCE
that are part of the feminine gender role. The actual learning process remains to be examined in future research. References Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosenkrantz, P. S. Sex-role stereotypes'. A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 1972, 28, 59-78. Cunningham, M. R. Personality and the structure of nonverbal communication of emotion. Journal of Personality, 1977 45, 564-584. DeFrank, R. S. Interactive, verbal and nonverbal aspects of the coronary-prone behavior pattern. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester, 1980. DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. Ambivalence, discrepancy, and deception in nonverbal communication. In R. Rosenthal (Ed.), Skil! in nonverbal communication. Cambridge, Mass.: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Main, 1979. (a) DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. Telling lies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 1713-1722. (b) Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry, 1969, 32, 88-106. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. Detecting deception from the body or face. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 288-298. Friedman, H. S., Prince, L. M., Riggio, R. E., & DiMatteo, M. R. Understanding and assessing nonverbal expressiveness: The Affective Communication Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, 39, 333-351. Hall, J. A. Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological Bulletin, 1978, 85, 845-857. Hall, J. A. Gender, gender roles, and nonverbal communication skills. In R. Rosenthal (Ed.), Skill in nonverbal communication. Cambridge, Mass.: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain, 1979. Hall, J. A, Gender differences in nonverbal communication skills. In R. Rosenthal (Ed.), Quantitative assessment of research domains. San Francisco: JosseyBass, 1980. Hall, J. A., & Halberstadt, A. G. Sex roles and nonverbal communication skills. Sex Roles, 1981,7, 273287.
Parsons, T. The American family: Its relations to personality and to the social structure. In T. Parsons & R. F. Bales (Eds.), Family, socialization and interaction process. New York: Free Press, 1955. Rogers, P. L., Scherer, K. R., & Rosenthal, R. Contentfiltering human speech. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 1971, 3, 16-18. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. Masculinity and femininity; Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1978. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. The many faces of androgyny: A reply to Locksley and Colten. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 1032-1046. Starkweather, J. Content-free speech as a source of information about the speaker. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956,52, 394-402. Zuckerman, M., Amidon, M. D., Bishop, S. E., & Pomerantz, S. D. Face and tone of voice in the communication of deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, in press. Zuekerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press, 1981. Zuekerman, M., Hall, J. A., DeFrank, R. S., & Rosenthal, R. Encoding and decoding of spontaneous and posed facial expressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 966-977. Zuekerman, M., Klorman, R., Larrance, D, T., & Spiegel, N. H. Facial, autonomic, and subjective components of emotion: The facial feedback hypothesis versus the externalizer-internalizer distinction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1981, 41, 929-944. Zuekerman, M., & Larrance, D. T. Individual differences in perceived encoding and decoding abilities. In R. Rosenthal (Ed.), Skill in nonverbal communication. Cambridge, Mass.: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain, 1979. Zuekerman, M., Larrance, D. T., Hall, J. A., DeFrank, R. S., & Rosenthal, R. Posed and spontaneous communication of emotion via facial and vocal cues. Journal of Personality, 1979, 47, 712-733.
Received February 5, 1981 •
