Post on 30-May-2018
8/9/2019 Gender Lang
1/18
Introduction
As Greenberg and Baron (1993) propose
It is a fact of life on the job th at everyone
engages in communication. C omm unication
has a cent ral role in on es working day and
perhaps this is why most man agers and organ-isational theorists view comm unication as
extremely importan t (Eisenberg and Phillips,
1991). Organisations could gain a great deal
from improving their comm unication systems
and tackling problems that have been attrib-
uted to t he quality of comm unication or
comm unication breakdown among individ-
uals and groups (Coupland et al., 1991).
Research in the area of sex differences in
language and oral commu nication has its
roots in the investigation of traditionally held
stereotypes about how women and m en
speak. Em pirical research has found some
support for these stereotypes but there are
also findings which actually invert trad itional
stereotypes or find no d ifferences at all
between the sexes. There are however enough
consistently foun d differences between men
and women to b e able to describe two distinct
speech styles, one used mainly by men, the
other used m ainly by women (Case, 1988,
1993; Tannen, 1990).
Explanat ions of the differences between
the speech of men and women have included
cultural differences between the two sexes
about what a conversation is (Maltz and
Borker, 1982) . Explanations based on male
dom inance in society have also been offered
where female speech is a reaction to the domi-
nant group of men (H enley and Kramarae,
1991). M ale dominance in society means that
male speech is seen as the n orm and female
speech is evaluated as deficient when com-
pared (H enley and Kram arae, 1991). Maledominance means that men control the lin-
guistic system and this in turn means that
women are denied adequate means to express
them selves. Researchers are now beginning to
recognise the fact that each of the theor ies has
something to offer and that a more compre-
hensive approach to the explanation of gender
differences in speech is called for.
Fishman (1978) concluded that women
use questions as a way of maintaining conver-
sation and gaining a response from a man . Aquestion is a powerful tool because it
demands a response. F ishman believes that
this is a manifestation of the m ale/female
hierarchy, which reflects the unequal statu s of
19
Women in Management Review
Volume 13 Number 1 1998 pp. 1936
MCB University Press ISSN 0964-9425
The impact of genderand its interaction withrole and status on the
use of tag questions inmeetings
Alison C.T. Calnan and
M arilyn J. Davidson
The authorsAlison C.T. Calnan is a Personnel Officer wi th Visteon,
Basildon, Essex.
Marilyn Davidson is Senior Lecturer in Organisational
Psychology, Manchester School of Management, UMIST,
Manchester.
Abstract
The use of t ag questions in speech has been hypothesised
to make speech sound uncertain and tentat ive although
Holmes (1984) suggests that there are three different
types of tag questions and only one type is linked to
uncertainty. Research on the issue of gender di fferences in
tag question usage has produced confusing fi ndings with
some research indicat ing women use more tag questions,
other research revealing men use more and some research
finding no dif ference. The research on tag question use has
identifi ed role and power as important factors not just
gender. The effects of the presence of the opposite sex on
speech is a controversial area of study. Past research
suggests that the use of tag questions is affected by
whether t he conversation is between members of the
same sex or members of both sexes. The current study
aimed to clarify the controversy of whether men or womenuse more tag questions, any possible effects of group
composition and sought to extend research on the rela-
tionship of tag question use to role (chairperson or not)
and power (highest status or not). The study was conduct-
ed at a power station in England. Ten business meetings
which were all male, all female or mixed were tape
recorded. From these tape recordings the tag questions
were identi fied, t ranscribed and classified as modal,
affective facilitat ive or affective softener according to the
classification provided by Holmes (1984).
8/9/2019 Gender Lang
2/18
women in society and demonstrates the
powerlessness of women. Women have
becom e the shift workers of ordinary inter-
action, i.e. they spend t ime asking questions
to keep the conversation going and d oing the
work to maintain interaction (F ishman ,
1978). Johnson (1980) in a study of profes-
sional meetings in a large industr ial corpora-
tion revealed that women did ask more qu es-
tions. On the other hand, Johnson (1980)
concludes that the use of questions is not
based on sex and n or does it demonstrate
powerlessness but instead it is linked to
purpose and the intent of the speaker, for
example, using it to check someone elses
utterance.
Sex differences in speech and tagquestions
T he aim of this paper is to present the find-
ings of a stud y which investigates gender
differences and the impact of role and status,
and the use of specific types of questions
known as tag questions.
A tag question is in between an outr ight
statement and a yes/no qu estion, e.g. Its hot
out side, isnt it?. T hey may either be formal,
e.g. Werent you? D oes he? H asnt it?
or informal e.g. Right? OK?. Lakoff
(1975) m aintained that tag questions make
speech less assertive and more tentative and
according to Lakoff women use more tag
questions in their speech. Emp irical investiga-
tions have revealed mixed findings as to
whether women do in fact use tag questions.
Some researchers agree that women use
more tag questions, e.g. Case (1988) in a
study of a group of managers at a manage-
ment school found that women used tag
questions more abundant ly than men. Fish-man (1980) demonstrated that in 52 hour s of
natural conversation between heterosexual
couples, at home, women asked th ree times as
many tag questions as men. M cMillan et al.
(1977) assigned male and female psychology
students to mixed, all male and a ll female
groups. On average they found t hat the female
student s used tag qu estions twice as often as
their male counterparts. Furthermore in
mixed groups women used three times as
many tag questions as the men.Oth er researchers have demon strated that
in some situations men use more tag ques-
tions than women, e.g. Dubois and C rouch
(1975) studied the conversational give and
take among participants following presenta-
tions at a professional conference and found
that all examples of tag questions recorded
were spoken by men. Lapad at and Seesahai
(1977) studying informal conversations
revealed that men asked m ore tag questions
than women. H owever, other studies have
shown no d ifference in the usage of tag
questions between men and women . For
example Bauman n (1976) in a study of
conversations in three different settings an
office staff meeting (mixed men and women),
a graduate linguistic class (mixed men and
women), an d a womens discussion grou p (all
women) revealed that men used tag questions
at least as mu ch as women, no tag questions at
all being recorded in the all female 2.5 hour
interaction. Baumann argues that tag ques-tions may not express uncertainty but that
simply they are used to be m ore polite. Indeed
Case (1993) demonstrated in the analysis of a
group of managers working together at a
management school that the women u sed tag
questions which made their speech sound
more socially facilitative.
Kollocket al. (1985) suggest that the u se of
tag questions is not to d o so much with gender
but with p ower. In a study of intimate couples
both heterosexual and homosexual Kollocket
al. revealed that the less powerful par tner in
all female and m ixed sex (whether m ale or
female) couples asked more tag questions.
Although in terestingly in m ale gay coup les the
less powerful partner had lower rates of tag
questions, K ollocket al. maintained that in all
male coup les the position of the less powerful
coup le is especially difficult an d it is often the
less powerful partner who will want to en d the
relationship. Kollocket al. maintained that
because of this the more powerful partner will
use more t ag questions to encourage the lesspowerful partner and tr y to create the appear-
ance of equality. Kollocket al. concluded that
it is power differences that m ay create the
appearance of sex differences in conversation.
Johnson (1980) has also linked the use of the
tag question to power. In h er study of four,
one-hour professional meetings she linked the
use of tag questions to the most powerful
person , since she found that it was actually the
male leader of the group who asked the m ost
tag questions (over half). H e used them tointerject, clarify and elaborate when others
had the floor as well as when h e himself was
talking. Indeed Johnson (1980) comm ents
that her findings contradict Lakoffs assertion
20
The impact of gender and its interaction w ith role and status
Alison C.T. Calnan and M arilyn J. Davidson
Women in Management Review
Volume 13 Number 1 1998 1936
8/9/2019 Gender Lang
3/18
that tag questions represent weakness or
uncertainty and in fact the tag question is a
powerful checking device.
Indeed Cameron et al. (1989) examined
the use of modal and affective tag questions in
group s where there were asymm etries in
power held by the par ticipants. Tags with
modal meaning request the addressee to
confirm the speakers proposition, e.g. Sh es
coming around noon, isnt she? and are
usually spoken with r ising inton ation. An
affective tag is one t hat expresses the speakers
attitude to t he addressee either by supporting/
facilitating the add ressee, e.g. T he hens
brown, isnt she? (spoken by a father to a
son), or b y softening a n egatively affective
speech act, e.g. T hat was pretty silly, wasnt
it? and are u sually spoken with falling tone(Coates, 1993). Cameron et al. (1989) discov-
ered that a ffective tags were used on ly by
powerful speakers; powerless speakers n ever
used affective tags. T he use of affective tags
was also related to role in the conversation.
T hose taking on a facilitating role regardless
of sex used m ore facilitating tags, although it
could be argued that women m ore often take
on th e role of facilitator in conversation (Fish-
man, 1980). M odal tags were used by both
powerful and powerless speakers although
both powerless men and women used them
slightly more. Furthermore in an other study,
Holmes (1984) found that women used mainly
affective tags while the majority of tags used
by men were mod al. Coates (1988) suggests
that women use more affective tags than men
because of the natu re of their conversations,
since the topics that women talk about i.e.
people and feelings, are more face threatening
than the topics men talk about, i.e. things.
Holmes (1984) argues that a ffective tags are
not associated with u ncertainty and it is infact modal tags that reflect uncertainty and
notably these are used mostly by men or by
powerless people. In conclusion, it would
appear from the research findings to date that
the issue of who uses tag questions most, in
what situations, and the relationship of tag
questions with power is still far from resolved.
Speech behaviour in groups
Nowadays, the nature of the goals and objec-tives of organisations necessitate that people
act as a group rather th an as individuals.
McC owan (1989) suggests that with sharpen-
ing competition between increasingly well-
organised players, it is team performance
which has often become the crucial factor in
success rather t han individual performance.
T he effect of the composition of groups on
speech behaviour of men and women is far
from clear. Bodine (1975) hypothesised that
the speech used in situations where both sexes
are present may be qu ite different from the
speech of single sex groups. Studies demon-
strate that in m ixed groups mens behaviour
approaches females, since men will increase
the frequency of supportive, personal interac-
tion and decrease competitiveness (Bohn and
Stutm an, 1983). Fu rthermore, men will also
swear less when women are present (Gomm ,
1981). M cMillan et al. (1977) found that in a
mixed sex group men used more tag ques-
tions, modal construction and intensifierswhich are all character istics of female speech.
Interestingly women used more when they
were in m ixed sex groups as well. They
hypothesise that m en u se more female
character istics in the presence of women
since they will recognise the female values of
interpersonal closeness and em otional
involvemen t. T hey offer another explanation
of why women increase the frequency of these
speech characteristics in ter ms of a power
different ial where unaggressive language
would be more appropr iate when t alking to
people with m ore power. What happens to th e
speech of women in sam e sex groups is less
clear (Case, 1994), although H irschman
(1973, 1974) tentatively suggests that women
may talk more easily to each other than to
men , since speech between women h as fewer
hesitations, more minimal responses and
more elaboration of the others speech. Tannen
(1990) com ments that at an all female meet-
ing which she observed and t aped there were
more multiple floors, more laughing, teas-ing and overlapped speech than at meetings
where all or most of the par ticipants were
male. Researchers have called for more
research into the effect of the com position of
groups on speech (Maltz and Borker, 1982).
The study
T his study attempts to resolve the con troversy
surrounding the issue of tag question usage,
par ticularly the issue of gender differencesand the impact of role and status. T he investi-
gation was condu cted using meetings held at a
power station in the nor th of England. U nlike
many previous studies a variety of meetings
21
The impact of gender and its interaction w ith role and status
Alison C.T. Calnan and Marilyn J. Davidson
Women in Management Review
Volume 13 Number 1 1998 1936
8/9/2019 Gender Lang
4/18
were tape recorded, all of which were part of
the n ormal working day at the p ower station
and hence conducted in natural conditions.
T he study was designed to investigate the
following hypotheses drawn from the litera-
ture:
(1) Women will use more affective (facilita-
tive and softener) tag qu estions than men.
(2) Men will use more modal tag questions
than women.
(3) Women in mixed groups will use more tag
questions than women in all female
groups.
(4) Men in mixed groups will use more
affective (facilitative and softener) tag
questions than m en in all male groups.
A furth er set of hypotheses were associated
with th e num ber of tag questions spoken by
people acting as chairperson and the people of
highest status (grade):
(5) People acting as chairperson will use
more affective, par ticularly facilitative,
tag questions than those people not acting
as chairperson.
(6) People with the highest status (grade) will
use more affective tag questions.
MethodGeneral Design
Ten bu siness meetings (all of which were a
natu rally occurr ing part of the working day)
were tape recorded at a power station in the
nor th of England over a period of one week. Of
the meetings stud ied, four were all male, one
was all female and five were mixed male and
female. Each meeting had d ifferent people
attending and was made up of between three
and 16 people. T he purpose of the ten meet-
ings taped varied but can be divided into threemain categories, the first category being sec-
tion/department review meetings which were
regular meetings (meetings one, two, four,
eight and n ine). T he second category included
meetings discussing specific projects (meet-
ings three, five and ten) , and committee meet-
ings (meeting six) made up th e third category.
Typed transcripts were taken from the tape
from each meeting. Tag questions occur ring in
the first 30 m inutes of the meeting were ident i-
fied and classified. T he classification of tag
questions was based on the description p rovid-
ed by Holmes (1984) and involved dividing
them into: affective facilitative, i.e. t ag ques-
tions indicating a positive interest in or
solidar ity with th e addressee; affective soften-
er, i.e. tag questions which soften a face threat-
ening act; or finally mod al, i.e. tag questions
requesting information or confirm ation of
information. T he speaker of the tag question
was noted and labelled appropr iately as either
male or female. It was also recorded whether
they were the chairperson or n ot and the
highest person with regards to status in the
group or not.
T he independ ent variables therefore in this
study were:
(1) the sex composition of the groups, either
all male, all female or mixed male and
female;
(2) the sex of the subjects, either male or
female;
(3) the role of the person in the group, i.e.whether they were the chairperson or not ;
(4) whether the person was highest in status
(grade) in the group or n ot. T he depen-
den t variable was the frequency of occur-
rence of tag questions both modal and
affective ( facilitative and softener).
Subjects
T he subjects were all, apar t from two,
employees at an electricity generating power
station in the nor th of England. T he remain-
ing subjects were curren tly working at the site
as contractors. In total 72 subjects took part,
mean age = 37.97: 48 males, mean age =
38.77, and 24 females, mean age = 36.44 . All
but one of the subjects described their ethnic
origin as white (UK and N orthern Ireland),
the remaining subject was classified as other
white (European). All subjects stated that
English was their first language.
A Sony M-425 m icro-cassette recorder was
used to tape all of the meetings. Each person
attend ing a meeting was informed that theexperimenter wished to tape record the meet-
ing as part of her study on how groups interact.
T he experimenter, at this point, d id not
explain the exact natu re of the study. Everyone
attend ing was asked permission to allow tape
recording and was guaranteed confidentiality
and that no one would be identified by the
study. Where possible a letter was sent to all
part icipant s before the meeting took place. It
was made clear by the experimenter that if any
one person ob jected tape recording would nottake place so the study was entirely voluntary.
On arrival at the meeting room each
subject was asked to complete a shor t
biographical questionnaire; one member of
22
The impact of gender and its interaction w ith role and status
Alison C.T. Calnan and M arilyn J. Davidson
Women in Management Review
Volume 13 Number 1 1998 1936
8/9/2019 Gender Lang
5/18
the group was asked to also complete a short
questionnaire providing information abou t
the m eeting itself. Both these questionnaires
were completed before the meeting began.
T he micro-cassette tape recorder was then
left in the room and on e person was asked to
turn over the tape if the meeting lasted longer
than half an hour. All participants were
instructed to tr y to forget that the tape
recorder was there and continue as they
norm ally would. At this point confidentiality
of the study was assured once more. T he
experimenter then left the room . T he experi-
menter returned at th e end of the meeting to
collect the tape and tape recorder. A letter was
given to the chairperson which explained in
more detail what the study was about and
expressed thanks to all those part icipating.
Meetings
T he study was conducted during one week at
the power station. M eetings scheduled for this
week were identified with the assistance of
secretaries. From the ident ified meetings, all
the m eetings that were suitable in terms of size,
(preferred size between 4-12 people), length
(at least half an hour) and where the subject
matter was not thou ght to be especially confi-
dent ial, were approached to be taped. O n this
basis ten meetings were selected and agree-
ment was given to tape record all these meet-
ings.
M eeting 1
T his was a meeting of a section in the human
resources department . It was a regular meet-
ing taking place each week and its purpose
was for the team memb ers to commu nicate to
each other their week ahead . Five people
attended all of whom were male (mean age =
34.4). T here was a mixture of grades from a
section head to an indu strial placement stu-
dent. T he indu strial placement student had
provided th e agenda. T he meeting lasted
38.49 m inutes and was quite informal in style.
M eeting 2
T his was a meet ing taking place in a section of
the engineering maintenance department .
T he purpose of the meeting was to review the
sections progress and th e meeting takes place
regularly every month. N ine people attended,
seven male (mean age = 37.85) and twofemale (mean age = 30.5), the mean age of the
group was 36.2 years. All the men were at
engineer grades and one was head of the
section, both women were on clerical grades.
T he style of the meeting was to go around
each person in tur n for an update. On e hours
worth of tape was recorded and the meeting
was not concluded in this time.
M eeting 3
T his was the first meeting of a group dis-cussing a project. Four people attended, all
were female (m ean age = 39). All the women
worked in the same section at a similar grade,
one of the women acted as team leader. T he
meeting lasted 30 minutes.
M eeting 4
T his was a meeting of represent atives of
sections within the commercial departm ent
and the departm ent man ager who was female.
T he meeting was held each morn ing for
briefing purposes. Six people attended (meanage = 38) , three male (mean age = 39) an d
three female (mean age = 37). All those
attending were at supervisory grades. T he
meeting lasted 30 m inutes and involved each
person in tu rn describing their day ahead.
M eeting 5
T his was a meeting to discuss an engineering
process and was the fourth occasion that the
group had m et. Twelve people attended, all of
whom were male (mean age = 40.16 years).
All those attend ing were engineers or similar
in status. The m eeting lasted 32.08 minutes
and the agenda was led by the highest ranking
man who sum marised a num ber of issues and
then went round the table asking for updates
from each person.
M eeting 6
T his was a meeting of a cross department
group reviewing training activities on site.
T he group met every two months and had
been meeting for six years. Six people were
present at the meeting (mean age = 41.166),
four were male (mean age = 41.75) and two
were female (mean age = 40). T he group was
a mixture of grades but the women were the
lowest grades present. O ne of the m en acted
as chairperson and he had p repared an agenda
which involved a h igh degree of input from
the training manager (male) and another
representative of the training departm ent
(female). T he meeting lasted one hour.
M eeting 7
T his was a meeting to discuss the installation
of a monitoring system by a contractor. It was
a weekly meeting and they had met ten t imes
previously. T here were four group members,
23
The impact of gender and its interaction w ith role and status
Alison C.T. Calnan and Marilyn J. Davidson
Women in Management Review
Volume 13 Number 1 1998 1936
8/9/2019 Gender Lang
6/18
all of whom were male and th eir mean age was
45.5 years. All attendees were of similar
grade. T he meeting lasted 30 minutes and
was chaired by one of the m en.
M eeting 8
T his was a weekly meet ing of the com mercialdepartment and was an oppor tun ity to pass
on information abou t both work and social
events. T he m eeting had been taking place for
one year. Sixteen people attended in total,
(mean age = 36 .33), n ine of whom were
female (mean age = 36.125) and seven of
whom were male (mean age = 36.57). T he
group was made up of a mixture of grades
from clerical staff to a junior m anager. T he
meeting lasted 36 .06 m inutes and was chaired
by a woman. O n the agenda were two infor-
mal presentations.
M eeting 9
T his was a weekly team m eeting of a section
in the human resources department. T he
meeting was aimed at u pdating each team
member on current issues. Seven people
attended (mean age = 35 .14), four females
and three males. T he meeting lasted 34.21
minutes and involved a sum mar y of some
current issues by the department man ager
(male) as well as an oppor tun ity for the rest ofthe team to share current concerns. T he
meeting was informal but chaired by the
second highest ranking person ( female).
M eeting 10
T his was a meeting to discuss perform ance
indicators for a project. T hree males attended
(mean age = 39 .66). It was the second t ime
that the group had met. T he meeting was an
open floor and all were at engineering grades.
T he meeting lasted 50.36 minutes.
Transcripts
T he first half-hour of each tape was listened to.
In every case where a tag question occur red
the tape was transcribed in the exact words of
the speaker and the intonation was noted. T he
speaker of the tag qu estion was also noted and
a label was attached ind icating whether they
were male or female, acting as chairperson or
not and whether they were the person in the
group of the highest status or not. In th is study
the person of highest status was the person
with the highest job grade. Tag questions were
coun ted and classified as either mod al or
affective ( facilitative and softener) using th e
description p rovided by H olmes (1984).
An independent experimenter was asked to
repeat th e process of coding the tag questions.
T he coder was briefed on what a tag question
was and th e different types modal, affective
facilitative, affective softener. D ue to t ime
constraints of the coder on ly five of the
meet ings were selected. T hese five meetings
included , however, 72 per cent of identified
tag questions. A Pearson product moment
correlation was calculated of 0.7180, indicat-
ing good inter-rates reliability.
Results
T he analysis is divided into three main
sections. Each section looks at differences
between two groups on th e following tag
question categories: total mean nu mber of tagquestions (all types), total mean num ber of
affective tag questions (both facilitative and
softener), m ean nu mber of affective facilita-
tive tag questions, mean number of affective
softener tag questions and m ean num ber of
modal tag questions.
T he first section examines differences
between males and females, in all the meet-
ings. T herefore the mean n umbers of tag
questions of each category is compared
between m ales and females. T his is achieved
by presenting the data in graph ical form and
then comparing means using independent
samples t-tests. T he next section is concerned
with differences in tag question u sage between
same sex groups compared to mixed sex
groups. T herefore, in th is section the m ean
numbers of tag questions (all categories) used
by women in sam e sex groups will be com-
pared to the mean n umber of tag questions
used by women in mixed groups; and the
mean num ber of tag qu estions (all categories)
used by men in same sex groups will be com-pared to the mean n umber of tag questions
used by men in mixed sex groups. T his analy-
sis will be achieved by presenting the data
graphically and t esting for any differences
using independent samp les t-tests. T he final
section investigates the effects of role (chair-
person or not) and status (person of highest
status in the m eeting or not) on all categories
of tag question use in all meetings. In th is
section the mean num bers of tag questions
asked by people in the role of chairperson willbe compared to the mean num ber of tag
questions asked by people not in the role of
chairperson. T he mean num ber of tag ques-
tions is also compared b etween people of
24
The impact of gender and its interaction w ith role and status
Alison C.T. Calnan and M arilyn J. Davidson
Women in Management Review
Volume 13 Number 1 1998 1936
8/9/2019 Gender Lang
7/18
highest status in each m eeting and people not
of highest status. Again the data will be pre-
sented graphically and independen t t-tests are
used. An analysis of variance is also reported
in this section which investigates the interac-
tion of sex with role and status.
Gender differences in tag question use
Figure 1 shows the mean n umber of tag
questions used by men and women in all the
meetings studied, i.e. both mixed sex and
same sex. It r eveals that there is a difference
between the total mean num ber of tag ques-
tions asked by women com pared to that of
men. Looking at the different types of tag
questions, the graph dem onstrates that men
and women ask exactly the same mean number
of affective questions. H owever, women askmore affective facilitative tag questions while
men ask more affective softener tag qu estions.
Men also ask more modal tag questions.
To test the significance of these differences
t-tests were carried ou t between the two
groups (men an d women) on each type of tag
question. T he means and results of the t-tests
for tag questions (modal, affective, affective
facilitative and affective softeners) are pre-
sented in Table I. T hese data are used to test
H1 that women will use more affective (facili-
tative and softener) tag qu estions than men,
and to testH2 that m en will use more modal
tag questions than women.
No significant d ifference was found
between how often men and women use tag
questions, women using a mean of 2.21 while
men u sed a mean of 2.63 tag questions. When
looking at the d ifferent types of tag questions,
men and women were shown to use exactly
the same mean total number of affective tags,
both m en and women h aving a mean of 1.17.
Consider ing the d ifferent types of affective tagquestions, no significant difference was found
between the mean n um ber of affective facilita-
tive tag questions used by men and women,
with the mean for women being 1.17 and the
mean for m en being 0.813. A significant
difference (t= 2.96,p < 0.05) was demon-
strated, however, between th e mean number
of affective softeners used by men and
women. Women were found never to u se
affective softeners while men used a mean of
0.292. N o difference was found in the use of
modal tags with women using a mean of 1.13
and m en using a mean of 1.46.
T hese results mean th at neitherH1 orH2
are supported .H1 stated that women will use
more affective tag questions than men . How-
ever these results indicate that there is no
difference between the mean n umb ers of
affective tag questions used by men andwomen. When con sidering facilitative and
softener t ags, no difference was found between
men and women in their use of facilitative tags,
but it was found that, in fact, men use signifi-
cantly more softener tags (t= 2.96,p < 0.05).
H2 stated that m en will use more modal tags
that women, but these results indicate that
there is no significant difference between the
mean number of modal tags used by men and
the mean number of modal tags used by
women.
Figure 2 shows the mean n umber of tag
questions used by women in same sex groups
compared to women in mixed groups. T he
graph reveals that women in same sex group s
used a greater total nu mber of tag questions.
When con sidering the different types of tag
questions, women in all female groups used
more modal and affective facilitative tag
questions. No women , no matter if they were
in all female groups or m ixed grou ps, ever
used affective softener tag questions.
Table II presents means for the numb er oftag questions (affective, facilitative, softener
and m odal) for women in m ixed and same sex
groups. It also shows t-test results for these
two groups (mixed and same sex) comparing
the nu mbers of tag questions asked by women
in same sex groups to women in mixed
groups. T hese data are used to test the signifi-
cance of the differences presented in the
graphs and thusH3 that women in m ixed
groups will use more tag questions than
women in all female groups.No significant d ifference was found in the
total mean use of tag questions between
women in same sex groups and women in
mixed groups, with women using a mean of
25
The impact of gender and its interaction w ith role and status
Alison C.T. Calnan and Marilyn J. Davidson
Women in Management Review
Volume 13 Number 1 1998 1936
Tot al t ags Tot alaffective
Facilit at ive Soft ener M odal
Type of tag question
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Mean number of tag questionsKey
Male (n = 48)
Female (n = 24)
Figure 1 The mean number of tag questions used by men
and women in all meetings (i.e. both same and mixed sex)
8/9/2019 Gender Lang
8/18
9.25 in same sex groups and women u sing a
mean of 0.80 in mixed groups. T here was nosignificant d ifference shown between the
mean total number of affective tags that
women use in mixed groups compared to the
mean n umber used in same sex groups, with
women using a mean of 5.75 in same sex
groups and a m ean of 0.25 in mixed groups.
Since women did n ot use any affective soften-
er tag qu estions the results for facilitative tag
questions are the same as the results for total
affective tag questions. F urtherm ore no t-testcould b e calculated for affective softener tag
questions since there were no examples. A
significant difference (t= 3.47,p < 0.05)
between the use of modal tag qu estions was
demon strated, however, between women in
mixed groups and women in same sex groups,
women in mixed groups using a mean of 0.65
while women in sam e sex group s using a mean
of 3.50.
T hese results do not suppor tH3 that
women in mixed groups will use more tagquestions than women in all female groups,
since no significant difference was foun d
between the m ean num ber of tags used by
women in mixed and women in same sex
groups. In fact, F igure 2 indicates that women
in same sex group s ask the most tag questions.
T his is supported by the fact that women in
same sex groups used significantly more
modal tag questions (t= 3.47,p < 0.05) than
women in m ixed groups.
26
The impact of gender and its interaction w ith role and status
Alison C.T. Calnan and M arilyn J. Davidson
Women in Management Review
Volume 13 Number 1 1998 1936
Total tags Totalaffective
Facili tat ive Modal
Type of tag question
109876543210
Mean number of tag questions
Key
All female (n = 4)
Mixed (n = 20)
Figure 2 The mean number of t ag questions used bywomen in al l female and mixed groups
Table II Mean number of occurrences of tag questions by women and standard deviat ions in mixed and same sex group
All female Mixed
(n= 4) (n= 20)
Standard Standard Degrees of
Tag questions Mean deviation Mean deviation freedom tvalue
All tag questions 9.25 7.41 0.80 1.47 3.05 2.27
Affective 5.75 5.12 0.25 0.55 3.01 2.14
Affective facilitative 5.75 5.12 0.25 0.55 3.01 2.14
Affective softener 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Modal 3.50 2.52 0.65 1.27 22 3.47*
Notes:
* = p < 0.05
NB: All degrees of freedom calculated using formulae for unequal variances
Table I Mean number of occurrences of tag questions and standard deviat ions by sex of subject
Women Men
(n= 24) (n= 48)
Standard Standard Degrees of
Tag questions Mean deviation Mean deviation freedom tvalue
All tag questions 2.21 4.40 2.63 3.38 70 0.45
Affective 1.17 2.84 1.17 1.87 70 0.00
Affective facilitative 1.17 2.84 0.813 1.39 70 0.70
Affective softener 0.00 0.00 0.292 0.683 47a 2.96*
Modal 1.13 1.83 1.46 2.10 70 0.66
Notes:
* = p < 0.05a = Degrees of freedom calculated using formulae for unequal variances
8/9/2019 Gender Lang
9/18
Figure 3 shows the mean nu mber of tag ques-
tions asked by men in same sex groups com-
pared to men in mixed groups. T he graph
reveals that m en in same sex groups ask a
greater total num ber of tag questions. In fact
they ask a greater num ber of every type of tag
question.
Table III presents means for the numb er of
tag questions (affective, facilitative, softener
and m odal) for men in mixed and same sex
group s. It also shows t-test results for these
two groups (mixed and same sex) comparing
the nu mbers of tag questions asked by men in
same sex groups to the num bers asked by men
in mixed group s. Th is data is used to test the
significance of the differences presented in the
graphs and thusH4 that men in mixed groups
will use m ore affective tag q uestions (facilita-
tive and softener) th an m en in all male groups
When considering differences in mean
num ber of tag questions used by men in
mixed group s and men in same sex groups no
significant d ifference was found in the total
mean use of tag questions, with men in same
sex groups using a mean of 3.29 while men in
mixed groups using a mean of 1.96. No differ-
ence was revealed in the m ean use of affective
tag questions between men in mixed groups
and m en in same sex groups either, with m en
in same sex groups asking a mean of 1.54
affective tag questions and men in mixed
groups asking a mean of 0.792. When
examining the d ifferent types of affective tag
questions used by men, n o difference was
found in the use of facilitative tag questions,
with m en in same sex groups using a mean of
0.875 and men in m ixed groups using a mean
of 0.750. T here was, however, a significant
difference (t= 2.70,p < 0.05) between the
mean use of softener t ag questions, since a
mean of 0.542 was found for men in same sex
groups while a mean of 0.042 was found for
men in mixed group s. No significant d iffer-
ence was found for the mean use of modal tag
questions between men in mixed groups and
men in same sex groups, since men in same
sex groups were demonstrated to use a mean
of 1.75 while men in mixed groups were found
to use a mean of 1.17 modal tag questions.
T hese data do not provide suppor t forH4
which states that men in mixed groups will
use more affective tag questions than men in
same sex groups. In fact, F igure 3 shows that
men in same sex groups use more affective
tags. Furtherm ore the t-test results also sug-
gest the opposite to the hypothesis, as the on ly
significant difference between the use of tag
questions by men in same sex groups com-
pared to m en in mixed groups is for the use of
affective softener t ag questions (t= 2.70,p