American University Students’ Apology Strategies: An Intercultural Analysis of the Effect of Gender
Abstract
This study aims at investigating potential gender effects in American university students’ use of apologies within the framework of the two-culture theory which claims that men and women are so different that they comprise strikingly different cultures. The researchers used a 10-item questionnaire based on Sugimoto’s (1997). The findings revealed that male and female respondents used the primary apology strategies of statement of remorse, accounts, compensation, and reparation. They also resorted to the use of non-apology strategies such as blaming victim and brushing off the incident as not important to exonerate themselves from blame. The findings further revealed that male and female respondents used the same primary strategies but in different frequencies. In addition, female respondents used fewer non-apology strategies than their male counterparts and more manifestations of the statement of remorse. Both similarities to and differences from Sugimoto’s findings were detected.
Full text article
References
Basow, S.A. and Rubenfeld, K. (2003). "Troubles talk": Effects of gender and gender-typing. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 48, 183-187.
Bate, B. and Bowker, J. (1997). Communication and the sexes (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press.
Burleson, B. R. (1997). A different voice on different cultures: Illusion and reality in the study of sex differences in personal relationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 229-241.
Cameron, D. (1992). Naming of parts: Gender, culture, and terms for the penis among American college students. American Speech, 67, 367-382.
Cameron, D., McAlister, F., and O'Leary, K. (1989). Lakoff in context: The social and linguistic functions of the tag questions. In J. Coates and D. Cameron (Eds.), Women in their speech communications. London: Longman.
Goldsmith, D.J. and Fulfs, P.A. (1999). "You just don't have the evidence": An analysis of claims and evidence in Deborah Tannen's You Just Don't Understand. In M.E. Roloff (Ed.), Communication yearbook 22. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Goodwin, M.H. (1980). Directive-response speech sequences in girls’ and boys’ task activities. In S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Borker, and N. Furman (Eds.), Women and language in literature and society. New York: Praeger.
Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus. New York: Harper Collins.
Huston, A.C. (1985). The development of sex typing: Themes from recent research. Developmental Review, 5, 1–17.
Jefferson, G. (1988). On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems, 35, 418-441.
Lakoff, R.T. (1975). Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper and Row.
Leaper, C. (1991). Influence and involvement in children’s discourse: Age, gender, and partner effects. Child Development, 62, 797–811.
Leaper, C. (1994). Exploring the consequences of gender segregation on social relationships. In C. Leaper (Ed.), Childhood gender segregation: Causes and consequences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Maccoby, E.E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.
MacGeorge, E.L, Graves, A.R., Feng, B., Gillihan, S.J., and Burleson, B.R. (2004). The myth of gender cultures: Similarities outweigh differences in men's and women's provision of and responses to supportive communication. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 50, 143-175.
Maltz, D.N. and Borker, R.A. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J.J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Michaud, S.L. and Warner, R.M. (1997). Gender differences in self-reported response to troubles talk. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 37, 527-540.
Porter, R. and Samovar, L. (1985). Approaching intercultural communication. In L. Samovar and R. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (4th ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth.
Schloff, L. and Yudkin, M. (1993). He and she talk: How to communicate with the opposite sex. New York: Plume Books.
Sugimoto, N. (1997). A Japan-U.S. comparison of apology styles. Communication Research, 24, 4, 349-370.
Swann, J. (1992). Girls, boys, and language. New York: Blackwell.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: William Morrow.
Tannen, D. (1994). Talking from 9 to 5: How women’s and men’s conversational styles affect who gets heard, who gets credit, and what gets done at work. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.
Tannen, D. (1995). Gender and discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.
Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
Troemel-Plotz, S. (1991). Selling the apolitical. In J. Coates (Ed.), (1998). Language and gender: A reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
Vangelisti, A.L. (1997). Gender differences, similarities, and interdependencies: Some problems with the different cultures perspective. Personal Relationships, 4, 243-253.
Wood, J.T. (1993). Engendered relations: Interaction, caring, power, and responsibility in intimacy. In S. Duck (Ed.), Social context and relationships. Newbury Park, California: Sage.
Wood, J.T. (1997). Clarifying the issues. Personal Relationships, 4, 221-228.
Wood, J.T. (2000). Relational communication (2nd ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth.
Wood, J.T. (2001). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture. (4th ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth.
Wood, J.T. (2002). A critical response to John Gray's Mars and Venus portrayals of men and women. Southern Communication Journal, 67, 201-210.
Wood, J.T. and Inman, C. (1993). In a different mode: Masculine styles of communicating closeness. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 21, 279-295.
Authors
Copyright (c) 2005 Ruba Fahmi Bataineh, Rula Fahmi Bataineh
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This journal provides immediate and free open access to all its content and is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This means readers are permitted to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author, as long as proper attribution is given. This policy is consistent with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access.