The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Predicting gender from electronic discourse
Abstract
There is substantial evidence of gender differences in face-to-face communication, and we suspect that similar differences are present in electronic communication. We designed three studies to examine gender-preferential language style in electronic discourse. In Expt 1, participants sent electronic messages to a designated 'netpal'. A discriminant analysis showed that it was possible to successfully classify the participants by gender with 91.4% accuracy. In Expts 2 and 3, we wanted to determine whether readers of e-mails could accurately identify author gender. We gave participants a selection of messages from Expt 1 and asked them to predict the author's gender. It was found that for 14 of the 16 messages used, the gender of author was correctly predicted. In the third experiment, six messages about gender-neutral topics were composed. Using a subset of the variables identified in Expt 1, female and male versions of each message were created. When participants were asked to rate whether a female or a male wrote these messages, their ratings differed as a function of the message version. These findings establish that people use gender-preferential language in informal electronic discourse. Furthermore, readers of these messages can use these gender-linked language differences to identify the author's gender.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“females used more emotion words [86], [87] (e.g., ‘excited’)”
From Personality, Gender, and Age in the Language of Social Media: The Open-Vocabulary Approach (2013) · cites this paper as [87]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Personality, Gender, and Age in the Language of Social Media: The Open-Vocabulary Approach
Schwartz, H. A., Eichstaedt, J. C., Kern, M. L., Dziurzynski, L., Ramones, S. M., Agrawal, M., Shah, A., Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., Seligman, M. E. P., et al. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0073791 · Cited by 1,700
“For example, females used more emotion words [86,87] (e.”
BackgroundGender differences in language use: An analysis of 14,000 text samples
Newman, M. L., Groom, C. J., Handelman, L. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2008) · Discourse Processes · doi:10.1080/01638530802073712 · Cited by 788
Mining e-mail content for author identification forensics
de Vel, O., Anderson, A., Corney, M., & Mohay, G. (2001) · ACM SIGMOD Record · doi:10.1145/604264.604272 · Cited by 487
“More recently, in the context of e-mail authorship characterisation, Thomson et al [34] have investigated the existence of gender-preferential language styles in e-mail communication.”
BackgroundInfluentialBelda-Medina, J. (2015) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315734347-19 · Cited by 281
Gender, Language and Discourse
Weatherall, A. (2005) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203988817 · Cited by 271
Metadata
- Authors
- Thomson, R., & Murachver, T.
- Affiliations
- University of Otago (NZ)
- Corresponding author
- Murachver, Tamar
- ORCID
- Thomson, Rob
- Venue
- British Journal of Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-06
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 193-208
- ISSN
- 0144-6665 (ISSN-L)
- 2044-8309
- OpenAlex
- W2030498115
- Cited by
- 179
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 23.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- British Journal of Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Studies in Language
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Digital Communication and Language
- Keywords
- gender differences, digital communication, email, gendered language, informal discourse, gender stereotypes
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Affect, Communication, Female, Gender Identity, Humans, Male, Random Allocation, Social Perception, Verbal Behavior, Discriminant Analysis, Internet
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review