Sex and Power in Interaction: Conversational Privileges and Duties

Abstract

This paper examines conversational behavior which previous research suggests is differentiated on the basis of sex. Interaction is conceptualized in terms of a sexual,division of labor wherein men dominate conversation and women behave in a supportive manner. The literature raises the question of whether these differences in conversational patterns are tied to power as well as sex. A study was designed to determine which of a set of variables reflecting conversational duties and privileges are linked to power, to sex, or to both. The data were coded from interactions of intimate couples divided among those with both partners sharing power equally and those where one partner has more power. Three types of couples were compared: cross-sex couples, male couples, and female couples. Interruptions and back channels are linked to power regardless of the sex of the actor, as are tag questions, although the rarity of their occurrence makes any conclusions tentative. The more powerful person interrupts his or her partner more and produces lower rates of back channels and tag questions. Talking time and question asking seemed linked to both sex and power, though not in any simple way. The results of the analyses of minimal responses and overlaps proved inconclusive. In recent years there has been a growing re-search interest in sex differences in speech (e.g., Thorne and Henley, 1975; Thorne et al., 1983). Conversational behavior, it was once argued, can be viewed as having a "male dialect " and a "female dialect " (Kramer, 1974). More recent commentators feel that such a conceptualization exaggerates and at the same time oversimplifies the differences between men's and women's speech (Thorne et al., 1983: 14). However, neither these authors, nor any others, deny that there are significant sex differences in verbal interaction. As various sex differences were observed, some authors began to look at possible reasons for their existence and at their implications.