Interaction patterns and themes of male, female, and mixed groups.

Small Group Behavior 01/1976; DOI: 10.1177/104649647600700102

ABSTRACT All-male, all-female, and mixed groups were observed for possible differences in interactional style. The groups met for 5 11/2-hr unstructured meetings. Portions of the tape-recorded sessions were analyzed by the General Inquirer computer-aided content analysis system. Leadership, defined as rank order of Ss initiating interaction, showed greater variation along sessions in the female than in the male group, whereas in the mixed group the males initiated and received more interaction than the females. Exercise of power, defined as amount of talking to the group as a whole rather than to individuals, occurred more often in the male groups than in the female. In the mixed groups, the female pattern did not change, but the males addressed the group as a whole less often in mixed groups. A 3rd difference was found on the variable of intimacy and openness. Female group members revealed more information about themselves and their feelings than the male group members. In the mixed group, males shared more about themselves than in the all-male group. Sex role pressures are considered to be a contributing factor to the results. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

  • Source
    Journal of Public Affairs Education. 01/2004; 10(2):125-142.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although the proportion of women in leadership positions has grown over the past decades, women are still underrepresented in leadership roles, which poses an ethical challenge to society at large but business in particular. Accordingly, a growing body of research has attempted to unravel the reasons for this inequality. Besides theoretical progress, a central goal of these studies is to inform measures targeted at increasing the share of women in leadership positions. Striving to contribute to these efforts and drawing on several theoretical approaches, the present study provides a contemporary examination of (a) whether women and men differ in their levels of power motivation and (b) whether potential gender differences in this motivation contribute to the unequal distribution of women and men in leadership positions. Results from four studies provide converging support for these assumptions. Specifically, we found that women consistently reported lower power motivation than men. This in turn mediated the link between gender and leadership role occupancy. These results were robust to several methodological variations including samples from different populations (i.e., student samples and large heterogeneous samples of employee), diverse operationalizations of power motivation and leadership role occupancy (self- and other ratings), and study design (cross-sectional and time-lagged designs). Implications for theory and practice, including ways to contribute to a more equal gender distribution in leadership positions, are discussed.
    Journal of Business Ethics 01/2014; · 0.96 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The goal of this work is to conduct a literature review of the main studies that had introduced new methodologies for investigating patterns of construction and dissolution of conjugality as an interactional process. Systemic perspective is epistemologically adopted as a criterion for analysis, because it enables a space for dialogue, differentiating the complexity of the views on conjugality. Studies published until August 2009 were consulted; the first reference found on the topic is from 1938. Databases consulted were PsycINFO and SciELO, using the following key-words (in different combinations of Portuguese and English): review, couples therapy, conjugality, divorce, and interaction. The studies cited in the articles as theoretic and methodologically innovative, as well as their ramifications, were highlighted, outlining thematic emphasis in its historical development. Repercussions for the clinical practice, strategies for therapeutic interventions and the limits of the conceptual review were pointed out.
    Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto) 08/2010; 20(46):269-278.


Available from
May 22, 2014