Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wbk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-18T15:19:19.792Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psychology of Male and Female Communicative Activity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2014

Svetlana A. Vasyura
Svetlana A. Vasyura*
Affiliation:
Udmurt State University (Russia)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Svetlana A. Vasyura, Universitetskaya str., 1-6-104, Izhevsk, Udmurt Republic, RUSSIA, 426034. Phone: +7 (3412) 916-122. E-mail: vasyura@udm.ru
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article features a brief overview of theoretical and empirical studies in communication psychology and sociability of men and women, boys and girls. Russian and foreign studies are summarized to point out that girls and women place greater emphasis on communication and interpersonal relations than do boys and men. Moreover, female communication is more emotional. The article presents the results of the author's own empirical study of male and female communicative activity. Communicative activity is viewed as a complex psychological phenomenon, a degree of the subject's willingness to interact. Communicative activity was studied with the test proposed by the Russian psychologist, Krupnov, and designed to detect the following components of communicative activity: dynamic (natural), emotional, motivational, cognitive, regulatory, productive, and two sorts of communication difficulties (operational and personal). Gender differences in communicative activity are shown on a sample of 480 participants aged 18-40 (240 men and 240 women). The article then describes communicative styles of adolescents (130 boys and 130 girls, aged 19-24). Various communicative styles are featured, including “energetic, businesslike,” “conformal, emotional,” “diplomatic, externally oriented” for boys and “energetic, sociable,” “emotional, difficult,” and “complaisant, expressive” for girls. Every person's individuality and gender identity are shown to impact their communicative style.

El artículo presenta una revisión de los estudios teóricos y empíricos de la psicología de la comunicación y la sociabilidad de hombres y mujeres, chicos y chicas. Se resumen estudios rusos y extranjeros y se indica que chicas y mujeres ponen mayor énfasis en la comunicación y en las relaciones interpersonales que los chicos y hombres. Además, la comunicación femenina es más emotiva. El artículo presenta los resultados del estudio de la autora sobre la actividad comunicativa de varones y mujeres. La actividad comunicativa se ve como un fenómeno complejo psicológico, un grado de la voluntad del sujeto a interactuar. Se estudió la actividad comunicativa con el test propuesto por al psicólogo ruso, Krupnov, diseñado para detectar los siguientes componentes de la actividad comunicativa: dinámico (natural), emocional, motivacional, cognitivo, regulativo, productivo, y dos tipos de dificultades de comunicación (operacional y personal). Se observan las diferencias de género en la actividad comunicativa en una muestra de 480 participantes de edades entre 18-40 años (240 varones y 240 mujeres). El artículo describe estilos comunicativos de adolescentes (130 chicos y 130 chicas, edades entre 19-24). Se observan varios estilos comunicativos, incluyendo “energético” “práctico [businesslike],” “conformista, emocional,” “diplomático, orientado externamente” para chicos y “energético, sociable,” “emocional, difícil,” y “complaciente, expresivo” para chicas. Se observa que la individualidad e identidad de género afectan el estilo comunicativo de las personas.

Keywords

communicative activitygenderintegral individualitystyle of communicative activityactividad comunicativagéneroindividualidad integralestilo de actividad comunicativa
Type
Articles
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , May 2008 , pp. 289 - 300
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bem, S.L. (1974). The measure of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162. (Russian translation: Ilyin, E.P. (2002). Differentsialnaya psyhofisiologiya muzchiny i zhenshiny (Differential psychophysiology of men and women) Saint-Petersburg: Piter.)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bem, S.L., Martyna, W., & Watson, C. (1976). Sex typing and androgyny: Further explorations of the expressive domain. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 34, 1016–1023.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bertalanfy, L. von. (1968). General system theory. Foundations, Development, Applications. New York: George Braziller.Google Scholar
Bodalev, A.A. (1996). Psih_logia obschenia (Psychology of communication). Moscow: Institut prakticheskoy psihologii. Voronezh: NPO “MODEK”.Google Scholar
Burakova, M.V. (2000). Interpretatsia masculinnosti-feminnosti vneshnego oblika zhenschini (na primere pricheski) (Interpretation of masculinity-femininity of woman appearance (by the example of haircut). Ph.D. thesis. Rostov-on-Don, Rostov State University.Google Scholar
Buunk, B.P., Vanyperen, N.W., Taylor, S.T., & Collins, P.L. (1991). Social comparison and the drive upward revisited: Affiliation as a response to marital stress. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 529–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattell, R.B., Saunder, D.R., & Stice, G. (1994). 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (5th ed.). Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Test. (Russian translation: Eliseev, O.P. (2001), Praktikum po psihologii lichnosti [Practical studies in individual psychology]. Saint-Petersburg, Russia: Piter.)Google Scholar
Eagly, A.H. (1995). The science and politics of comparing women and men. American Psychologist, 50, 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eliseev, O.P. (2001), Praktikum po psihologii lichnosti (Practical studies in individual psychology). Saint-Petersburg, Russia: Piter.Google Scholar
Eshbi, U.R. (1959). Vvedenie v kibernetiku/Perevod s angliiskogo Lakuri D.G. Pod. red. Uspenskogo V.A. (Basics of cybernetics) [Translation by D.G. Lakuti. Moscow: Inostrannaya literature (Foreign literature).Google Scholar
Gorbunov, Yu.Ya. (1992). Indidualny stil volevoi aktivnosti i ego formirovanie u starshih shkolnikov (Senior pupils' individual style of volitional activity and its forming): Doctoral dissertation. Perm State Pedagogical University. Perm, Russia.Google Scholar
Groshev, I.V. (2002). Psihlogia polovyh razlichi (Psychology of gender differences): Doctoral dissertation. Moscow: Rossiiski universitet druzhbi narodov (Peoples' Friendship University of Russia).Google Scholar
Helgeson, V.S. (1994). Relation of agency and communion to wellbeing: Evidence and potential explanation. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 412–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kon, I.S. (1988). Vvedenie v seksologiu (Basics of sexology). Moscow: Meditsina.Google Scholar
Kornienko, D.C. (2001). Gendernie razlichia v structure kommunikativnoy aktivnosti/ Psiholohia XXI veka (tezisi mezhdunarodnoy mezhvuzovskoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii /pod. red. Krilova A.A. (Gender differences in the structure of communicative activity/ Psychology of the XXI century (Theses of international interuniversity research and practical conference)). Saint-Petersburg State University, 228–229.Google Scholar
Kornienko, D.S. (2003). Kommynikativnaya aktivnost v strukture integralnoy individualnosti: geneticheski i ontogeneticheski aspekty (Communicative activity in the structure of integral individuality: genetic and ontogenetic aspects). Doctoral dissertation. Perm State Pedagogical University. Perm, Russia.Google Scholar
Krupnov, A.I. (1995). Psihologicheskaya problema obschitelnosti kak sistemnogo kachestva lichnosti (Psychological nature of sociability as an individual systems characteristic). Gumanizatia obrazovania, 3, 64–70.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, I.K. (1987). Psihologicheskie osobennosti opredelennogo pola v yunosheskom vozraste (Psychological peculiarities of gender in adolescence). Doctoral dissertation. Moscow.Google Scholar
Labunskaya, V.A., Medzheritskaya, Ya.A., & Breys, E.D. (2001). Psihologia zatrudnennogo obshenia (Psychology of obstructed communication). Moscow: Academiya.Google Scholar
Leary, T. (1957). Leary's Interpersonal Behavior Circle: An interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press Company.Google Scholar
Merlin, V.S. (1981). Systemny podhod k ontogenezu integralnoy individualnosti (System approach to the ontogenesis of integral individuality). In Antsyferova, L.I. (ed.) Psihologia formirovania i razvitia lichnosty (pp. 87–105) (Psychology of personality forming and development). Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Moshkina, L.D. (2000). Polovie osobennosti integralnoy individualnosti studentov (Sexual peculiarities of integral student individuality). Dcotoral dissertaton. Perm State Pedagogical University. Perm, Russia.Google Scholar
Pavlov, I.P. (1951). Polnoe sobranie sochineniy (Complete set of works). Moscow: Gosizdat.Google Scholar
Pogolsha, V.M. (1998). Sotsialno-psihologicheski potentsial lichnogo vliyania (Socio-psychological potential of personal influence). Doctoral dissertation. Saint-Petersburg State University.Google Scholar
Ratanova, T.A., & Shlyahta, N.F. (1998). Psyhodiagnosticheskie metody izucheniya lichnosti (Psycho-diagnostic methods of personality research). Moscow: Moskovskii psyhologo-sotsialnyi institut Flinta.Google Scholar
Rudey, O.A. (1987). Psihologicheskie uslovia ucheta polovozrastnyh osobennostey podrostkov pri organizatsii obchestvenno poleznogo truda (Psychological conditions of accounting gender and age specifics in the organization of socially useful work): Doctoral dissertation. Moscow State University.Google Scholar
Rusalov, V.M. (1985). O prirode temperamenta I ego meste v structure individualnih svoistv cheloveka.I/Voprosi psihologii. (About the nature of temperament and its place in the structure of individual characteristics of a person). Questions of Psychology, 1, 19–33.Google Scholar
Shmykov, V.I. (1996). Indidualny stil kommunikativnoy aktivnosti osuzhdennyh (Individual communicative style of convicts). Psihologichesky zhurnal, 3, 44–52.Google Scholar
Sobchik, L.N. (1990). Diagnostika mezhlichnostnih otnosheniy, Modifitsirovannyi variant interpersonalnoi diagnostiki T. Leary. Metodicheskoe rukovodstvo (Diagnostics of interpersonal relations. Modified version of interpersonal diagnostic of T.Leary. Methodical guidelines). Moscow: IKA “Moskva”.Google Scholar
Strickland, B.R., & Haley, W.E. (1980). Sex differences on the Rotter I-E Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 930–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D. (1991). You just don't understand. Women and men in conversation. London, Virago Press.Google Scholar
Tyrnova, O.A. (1996). Psihologicheskie razlichia v proyavleniyah obschitelnosti u yunoshei i devushek (Psychological differences of sociability in adolescents). Doctoral dissertation. Moscow: Rossiiski universitet druzhbi narodov (Peoples' Friendship University of Russia).Google Scholar
Ustalov, V.A. (2006). Stil psihologicheskoy zashiti v strukrture integralnoy individualnosti. Avtoreferat dissertatsii. (Style of psychological defense in the structure of integral individuality) Abstract from Ph.D. thesis. Perm: Perm State Pedagogical University.Google Scholar
Vasyura, S.A. (2002). Osobennosti kommunikativnoy aktivnosti yunoshei i devushek (na primere studentov faculteta fizicheskoy kultury) (Peculiarities of communicative activity in adolescence [on an example of students of the Sports Faculty]). Vestnik Permskogo Pedagogicheskogo Universiteta. Fizkultura i Sport, 1, 51–66.Google Scholar
Vizgina, A.P., & Panteleev, S.R. (2001). Proyavlenie lichnostnyh osobennostey v samoopisaniyah muzhchin i zhenshin (Selfdescribed personal peculiarities in men and women). Voprosy Psihologii, 3, 91–100.Google Scholar
Volochkov, A.A. (2002). Uchebnaya aktivnost v integralnom issledovanii individyalnosty (Education activity in integral research of personality). Doctoral dissertation. Perm State Pedagogical University. Perm, Russia.Google Scholar
Vyatkin, B.A. (2006). Gendernye razlichiya v integralnom issledovanii individualnosti (Gender differences in the integral research of personality). Vestnik Permskogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta. Psychology, 2, 13–24.Google Scholar
Yufereva, I.I. (1985). Obrazy muzhchin i zhenscchin v soznanii podrostkov (Male and female images in teenager perception). Voprosy psihologii, 3, 84–90.Google Scholar
Znakov, V.V. (2005) Psihologia ponimania: problemi i perspektivi.(Psychology of comprehension: problems and outlooks. Moscow: Institute of psychology of Russian Academy of Science.Google Scholar