|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 66, Zeilen: 1ff (entire page) |
Quelle: Ivy Backlund 2004 Seite(n): 34, 35, 42, Zeilen: 34: 3rd paragraph; 35: 8ff; 42: 6ff; |
|---|---|
| Biological sex has a major influence on the communication between men and women. Nevertheless, Gould (1972) shows that biology is not destiny, and that is the amazing possibility of analyzing gender communication. A person’s sex cannot be easily changed, but a person’s concept of gender is much more open to change and development.
Some people are even more comfortable claiming themselves as androgynous, meaning that they have a mix of traits typically associated with one sex or the other. Androgyny is derived from the Greek andros, meaning man; and gyne, meaning woman, and the term was made popular by gender scholar Sandra Bem (1974). Androgynous women are not necessarily masculine or sexless; similarly, androgynous men are not necessarily effeminate, gay, or asexual. This kind of gender identity merely involves a combination of sex-associated traits, instead of only those traits linked with femininity or masculinity (Lippa, 2002). Humans find comfort in being able to expect and predict how others will behave, hence making these expectations and predictions powerful motivators in human communication. On the basis of their past and ever-expanding experiences, people strive to anticipate a situation, predict how certain behaviors will lead to certain reactions from others, act accordingly, and reap rewards from the situation. Charles Berger and his colleagues have contributed a significant amount of research about the process of uncertainty reduction. According to Berger, when people cannot form adequate expectations and are unable to predict what will happen in situations, they experience uncertainty (Berger & Bradac, 1982; Berger & Calabrese, 1975). One reaction to this discomfort is by communicating in order to gain information and reduce uncertainty. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology [sic], 42, 155-162. Gould, L. (1972, December). X: A fabulous child’s story. Ms. 105-106. Lippa, R.A. (2002). Gender, nature, and nurture. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. |
[page 34]
Biological sex suggests several things about how women and men communicate and are communicated with, but biology isn't destiny, and that's the powerful potential of studying gender communication. A person's sex isn't easily changed, but a person's concept of gender is far more open to change and development. [page 35] Many people are more comfortable viewing themselves as androgynous, meaning that they possess and blend traits typically associated with one sex or the other. Androgyny is a term made popular by gender scholar Sandra Bem (1974); the term is derived from the Greek andros, meaning man; and gyne, meaning woman. Androgynous women aren't necessarily masculine or sexless; likewise, androgynous men aren't necessarily effeminate, gay, or asexual. This form of gender identity simply involves a blending of sex-associated traits, rather than an adherence to only those traits associated with femininity or masculinity (Lippa, 2002). [page 42] Humans like to be able to form expectations and to predict how others will behave. These expectations and predictions are comforting; thus, they are powerful motivators in human interaction. On the basis of their past and ever-expanding experiences, people strive to anticipate a situation, predict how certain behaviors will lead to certain reactions from others, act accordingly, and reap rewards from the situation. Charles Berger and his colleagues have contributed a significant amount of research about this process of uncertainty reduction. According to these researchers, when people cannot form adequate expectations and are unable to predict what will happen in situations, they experience uncertainty (Berger & Bradac, 1982; Berger & Calabrese, 1975). One reaction to this discomfort is to communicate to gain information and reduce uncertainty. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42,155-162. Berger, C. R., & Bradac, J. J. (1982). Language and social knowledge: Uncertainty in interpersonal relationships. London: Edward Arnold. Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond. Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99-112. Lippa, R. A. (2002). Gender, nature, and nurture. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. |
The true source is not given. Neither Berger & Bradac 1982 nor Berger & Calabrese 1975 are listed in Dsi's references. |
|