Computers in

Human Behavior
Computers in Human Behavior 21 (2005) 127145
www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Gender distinctiveness,
communicative competence, and the problem
of gender judgments in
computer-mediated communication
Eino Sierpe *

Department of Information and Library Science, Southern Connecticut State University, 501
Crescent Street, New Haven, CT 06515, USA
Available online 14 January 2004

Abstract

Despite persistent claims regarding the ability of text-based computer-mediated commu-

nication to neutralize gender identities, few researchers have worked on the problem of gender
distinctiveness in textual production and interpretation, gender judgments, and more impor-
tantly, the role of gender in the process of impression formation in electronic communication.
Against this background, the author addresses the theoretical aspects of gender in textual
communication and places the problem of gender distinctiveness and gender judgments in
CMC in the context of Hymes model of communicative competence. He also isolates several
variables worthy of investigation, namely, the provision of gender judgments, accuracy, and
certainty. He then reconceptualizes the problem of gender distinctiveness and impression
formation in CMC by bridging the gap between textual markedness and expectations.
2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

An examination of the growing body of research literature on the psychological

and social aspects of computer-mediated communication (CMC) suggests that the

*
Tel.: +1-203-392-6883; fax: +1-203-392-5780.
E-mail addresses: sierpe@southernct.edu, sierpe@scsu.ctstateu.edu (E. Sierpe).

0747-5632/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2003.11.009
128 E. Sierpe / Computers in Human Behavior 21 (2005) 127145

problem of gender judgments in CMC has not received a great deal of attention. One
of the consequences of this oversight is that the claims regarding the ability of CMC
to neutralize gender remain largely unchallenged. To date, with the exception of
Savicki, Kelley, and Oesterreich (1999) no one has focused exclusively on ques-
tioning whether the medium can neutralize or at least reduce the gender distinc-
tiveness that characterizes face-to-face or audio human communication. In this
context, gender distinctiveness refers to the cluster of features that is evident in the
linguist enactment of the appropriate, socially constructed gender roles.
The importance of focusing on gender distinctiveness in CMC extends beyond
satisfying our desire to establish whether we have the ability to identify the gender of
electronic communicators based on the detection of gender cues. As an area of re-
search interest, gender distinctiveness is signicant because it is universally recog-
nized as a fundamental building block in the construction, development, and
maintenance of social relationships and the practice of human communication. After
all, the distinctiveness in the communicative styles of men and women is something
we all recognize even if we are not always consciously aware of it. As competent
speakers and members of well-dened speech communities, we are able to associate
linguistic events with existing gender categories. More importantly, however,
through the activation of cognitive mechanisms and resources available from the
earliest stages of childhood development, we interpret the linguistic enactment of
gender distinctiveness to establish the social and communicative competence of our
conversational partners and those we come into contact with (Edelsky, 1977). As
such, gender distinctiveness in linguistic expression is a powerful determinant in the
outcome of the process of impression formation, that is, the process comprising the
evaluation and assessment of the qualities or characteristics of our conversational
partners based on their communicative performance. This is where the importance of
gender judgments actually lies and where the answers to still-unresolved questions on
the problem of CMC practice are likely to be found.
Against this background, in the pages that follow I seek to contribute to the
theoretical aspects of the socio-psychological CMC debate. My aim is to draw
attention to the importance of gender distinctiveness in CMC and the need to
address the cognitive processes that operate in CMC. I will do so by examining
the underlying issues and reviewing what may appear to be unrelated research
literature. The issues of interest include gender distinctiveness in textual produc-
tion, an area that has preoccupied educational psychologists and literary critics
for many years, and the problem of markedness. I will also place the problem
of gender judgments and gender identication in CMC in the context of com-
municative competence, a theoretical model rst proposed by Hymes (1972). The
most important objective in this area is to converge areas that hold particular
promise in the development of an understanding of the role of gender in the
cognitive processes in CMC and to encourage others to redirect future research
eorts.
Although Hymes model of communicative competence is not contemporary to
CMC research and limited in that it does not specically address the problem of
social markedness and how markedness relates to the social expectations we have, it
 E. Sierpe / Computers in Human Behavior 21 (2005) 127145 129

is relevant because it species how human beings recognize the appropriateness of

linguistic events. Furthermore, the application of a revised version of Hymes model
suggests that questions on how we construct a social identity in CMC and how we
identify our electronic conversational partners will only be solved if we examine the
relationship between markedness and the expectations that govern the process of
textual interpretation.
Since this constitutes a theoretical contribution to the socio-psychological aspects
of CMC study and research, I have chosen not to provide results from empirical
research to support the arguments I am advancing, at least not in the form that is
usually expected. However, intuitive reection and consideration of the evidence
accumulated over the last thirty years should provide convincing support for the
need to address the role of gender in CMC practice and the centrality of gender
distinctiveness.

2. The characteristics of CMC and CMC research

Since its early beginnings in the 1970s, CMC research has shown great variety in
disciplinary and methodological perspectives. This trend continues today with new
areas of scholarly interest added to the literature on a regular basis. However, despite
the exponential increase in the number of publications available, a literature review
suggests that research interests are often centered on, or at least touch upon several
characteristics of CMC. These characteristics are said to distinguish CMC from
other forms of human communication or earlier communications technologies. They
include the language of CMC, the openness shown by users, and the ability of CMC
to provide anonymity. These are not the only characteristics that have drawn
scholarly attention but, as Herring (1996) points out, they are the most often cited in
the research literature.

2.1. The language of CMC

The rst characteristic to draw attention is the language used in CMC. Usually
quick, informal and with little if any editing, electronic exchanges are viewed as a
typed conversation. The way in which electronic messages dier from other forms of
communication led Collot and Belmore (1993, 1996) to characterize the language of
CMC as electronic language and argue that:
Electronic language is characterized by a set of situational constraints which sets it apart from other
varieties of English. Messages delivered electronically are neither spoken nor written in the con-
ventional sense of these words. There is an easy interaction of participants and alternation of topics
typical of some varieties of spoken English. However, they can not be strictly labelled as spoken
messages since the participants neither see or hear each other. Nor can they be considered strictly
written since many of them are composed directly on-line, thereby ruling out the use of planning
and editing strategies which can be at the disposal of even the most informal writer (Collot & Bel-
more, 1996, p. 14).
130 E. Sierpe / Computers in Human Behavior 21 (2005) 127145

Still in the area of language, two additional linguistic features have been com-
mented on. The rst is the use of keyboard tricks to simulate human faces. These
emoticons or graphic accents as they are sometimes called (Witmer & Katzman,
1998; Witmer, Katzman, & Coman, 1997), are used as visual representations of
emotions such as happiness and anger. The second is a special lexis found nowhere
else and, at least in the case of English language CMC, the abundant use of acro-
nyms. These have been rened to such an extent that user guides or FAQ (frequently
asked questions) documents often include the most commonly used, for example,
IMHO (in my humble opinion), BTW (by the way), etc.

2.2. Openness in CMC

The second characteristic frequently cited in existing CMC literature relates to the
openness shown by CMC users. The basic argument is that CMC diers from tra-
ditional written communication in that the perceived ephemerality of electronic
messages and lack of tangible reminders of audience induces people to be more open
and blunt. On this issue Sproull and Kiesler (1992) write:
When people perceive communication to be ephemeral, the stakes of communication seem smaller.
People feel less committed to what they say, less concerned about it, and less worried about the
social reception they will get.

. . . Ordinarily when people communicate, they arent just exchanging information; they are project-
ing an image of themselves. This knowledge can make them shy in front of others, especially those
whose respect they most desire. Ephemerality and plain text in electronic mail reduce the fear of
appearing foolish in front of others. By removing reminders of a possible critical audience,
electronic mail induces people to be more open (Sproull & Kiesler, 1992, p. 42).

This argument has been used to explain the emergence of what is known as
aming. Flaming has been dened as the hostile expression of strong emotions or
feelings (Lea, OShea, Fung, & Spears, 1992) or as the expression of strong negative
emotion (Herring, 1994b). This phenomenon can manifest itself in dierent degrees
of intensity and range from the use of inappropriate, obscene language to more
subtle personal insults.

2.3. CMC as anonymous and barrier-free

Another and perhaps more important characteristic is the ability of CMC to strip
away many of the features associated with face-to-face interaction or other forms of
human communication. This can leave users, some researchers have suggested, with
no information about the gender, identity, personality, or mood of their conversa-
tional partners (e.g., Hiltz & Turo, 1978, reprinted in 1993; Kiesler, Siegel, &
McGuire, 1984; Sproull & Kiesler, 1992).
This claim, one that has been largely instrumental in shaping public perceptions of
CMC as anonymous, democratic, and barrier-free, is humorously captured in the
July 5, 1993 New Yorker (p. 61) cartoon by Peter Steiner that shows a dog at a
computer. The caption reads: On the Internet, nobody knows youre a dog.
 E. Sierpe / Computers in Human Behavior 21 (2005) 127145 131

The belief that CMC renders communication anonymous is not exclusive to

cartoonists, however. The following contribution to an electronic discussion
list by a CMC user is a good example of the optimism surrounding CMC
technology:
[Electronic mail] lets me talk to other people as peers. No one knows if I am an hourly worker or a
vice president. All messages have an equal chance because they all look alike. The only thing that
sets them apart is their content. If you are a hunchback, a paraplegic, a woman, a black, fat, old,
have two hundred warts on your face, or never take a bath, you still have the same chance. It strips
away the halo eects from age, sex, or appearance (Zubo, 1988, p. 371, also cited in Sproull &
Kiesler, 1992, p. 43).

This statement bears a remarkable similarity to one I encountered in a debate

among students in a university setting. When asked to characterize CMC, a student
wrote:
I think CMC is quite democratic for those who have the equipment because factors such as age,
social status, and appearance do not limit ones opportunity to share. If I did not know who they
were, it would not matter if I were communicating with David Letterman or Brad Pitt. I could com-
municate in any outt, even on a bad hair day. Eventually character, intelligence and background
would enter into whether the communication was worthwhile, but initially, everyone has the same
opportunity.

On a similar vein, Kiesler et al. (1984) also argue that CMC has features that can
signicantly alter the dynamics of group communication processes. The rst is the
absence of regulating feedback such as head nods, smiles, eye contact, distance, and
tone of voice. Another is dramaturgical weakness to the extent that CMC precludes
the possibility of speaking loudly, staring, touching, and gesturing. They also cite the
reduction of status and position cues and social anonymity. On this point, they argue
that because electronic communication is blind to vertical hierarchical structures
charismatic and high status people may have less inuence, and group members
may participate more equally in computer communication (Kiesler et al., 1984, p.
1125).

3. Gender and CMC

One of the problems with the arguments articulated by the advocates of any of the
cues-ltered out theoretical models and those who see in electronic communication
the beginning of an era of gender equality, is that they are largely inconsistent
with the reality of gendered communication. Supporters of CMC also fail to account
for the way in which existing social structures inuence and shape technological
practice (cf., Rakow, 1988; Wajcman, 1991). CMC is not devoid of hierarchical
structures. The practice of CMC simply recreates existing norms and practices.
Furthermore, these practices are readily observable and quantiable.
In the area of gender, the available evidence is becoming increasingly dicult to
dismiss. To date, research on gender and CMC has consistently demonstrated that
gender inequalities dene professional and scholarly electronic communication and
that men are over-represented in electronic communities (cf., Herring, 1992; Sierpe,
132 E. Sierpe / Computers in Human Behavior 21 (2005) 127145

2000). Men are also more likely to contribute to topical discussions than women are
(cf., Sierpe, 2001). Gender inequalities are also found in conversational dynamics to
the extent that men are much more likely to engage in behaviors designed to draw
attention to themselves. They are also more likely to use adversarial rhetorical
strategies to coerce and intimidate others into submission (cf., Herring, 1994a,
1994b; Herring, Johnson, & DiBenedetto, 1992, 1995).
Although the available evidence points to the centrality of gender in CMC
practice, gender research in CMC also suggests a fundamental aw on how the
problem has been conceptualized. To further our understanding of CMC we cannot
limit our investigations to the observation of behaviors online and simply describe
the recreation of male conversational dominance in electronic environments in terms
of the number of words or screens in a message, or the number of messages posted to
electronic fora. We also cannot limit the scope of our inquiry to the description or
cataloging of the rhetorical strategies used to dominate electronic discourse. To
understand the implications of gender in CMC we need to move beyond behavioral
research and address the cognitive processes that operate in CMC as well as the
belief systems that underlie its practice.

4. Revisiting the problem of gender typical language

The extent to which electronic messages can act as gendered representations and
make the identication of their authors possible in situations where recipients do not
know the identity of the sender needs to be examined from a broader perspective.
From a socio-psychological standpoint, this perspective should account for the
question of how communicators mark the texts they produce with their gender
identity. We should also account for the question of how beliefs about gendered
linguistic representations are embedded in the process of textual interpretation. This
perspective would be particularly relevant in linguistic systems where speakers are
not forced to reveal their gender through the use of gender-specic pronouns or any
other grammatical devices. CMC is about human communication and the process of
coding and decoding is central in its practice. In essence, if we are to develop an
understanding of the cognitive processes that operate in CMC we need to address the
way in which gender is implicated in the production and interpretation of electronic
texts.
The suggestion that textual markedness is linked to a well-dened belief system on
how men and women communicate rests on two arguments. The rst is that writers
can and do leave traces of their gender identity in the texts they produce. The in-
tensity of the traces embedded in the texts writers produce will be dictated by many
individual factors as well as by their complex interaction. These factors may include
the characteristics of the language used, the conscious and unconscious lexical and
stylistic choices made by writer, the amount of self-disclosure, the nature of the
specic writing task, amount of editing and planning, intended audience, and so on.
These factors should be understood as universal to the extent that they would be
 E. Sierpe / Computers in Human Behavior 21 (2005) 127145 133

evident in any linguistic setting. Their specic strength, or value, however, would
vary and be subject to context-specic constraints.
The second argument, one that applies to linguistic settings where the basic struc-
tures do not force gender self-disclosure, is that gender traces can be decoded during
the process of textual interpretation through the application of a complex inventory of
cognitive skills. These cognitive skills are developed from early childhood and are
closely related to the development of social communicative competence. Their acti-
vation during the process of textual interpretation is what allows the transformation of
gender traces into gender cues. The distinction between traces and cues is that gender
traces relate to the process of textual production while gender cues are associated with
the process of textual interpretation (Mills, 1995). From this perspective, gender
cues can be dened conceptually as any feature or characteristic that acts as a
gender marker from the perspective of the individual reader. The ability to transform a
gender trace into a gender cue is what actually makes a statement regarding the
gender identity of an electronic author, that is, a gender judgment, possible.
From a theoretical standpoint, we need to distinguish gender traces from
gender cues. This is mandatory because not all traces will necessarily cross the
threshold of detection. Furthermore, readers mayby virtue of their character-
isticsexpress disagreement on what exactly constitutes a gender cue. This can be
expected because their ability to identify cues will be largely dependent on their
verbal ability, linguistic, cultural or social background, life experiences, formal
education, ability to reect, etc. However, regardless of any potential variability
we can expect consensus among individuals with respect to some cues based on,
for example, stereotypical beliefs regarding male or female language and what a
man and a woman supposedly sound like. This agreement would be one of the
possible manifestations of communicative competence or our ability to pass
judgment on the appropriateness of socio-linguistic events. This is an important
consideration when we examine the problem of how CMC users read the gender
of electronic communicators in contexts where the basic linguistic structure does
not convey information about the gender of the speaker.
Arguing that gender traces are present in electronic texts and that they can emerge
as gender cues during the process of textual interpretation, and ultimately lead to
gender judgments, is not unprecedented. Persistent beliefs about the gender appro-
priateness of certain linguistic features and what men and women supposedly sound
like have been cited frequently in the literature. One of the earliest, known attempts
to catalogue the features that make up the gender distinctiveness in language is that
of Jespersen (1922) who described the superiority of mens language in a chapter
entitled The Woman in his now-classic account of language entitled: Language: its
nature, development and origin.
The interest in the gender distinctiveness of language has not always been artic-
ulated in descriptive terms. Some have followed their own intuition as uent
speakers of a language. For example, in a letter addressed to George Eliot, Dickens
(1858) commented on his rst readings of Eliots (1858) The sad fortunes of the
Reverend Amos Barton and Mr. Gills love-story by noting his strong suspicion that
the author was a woman. In his letter to Eliot, Dickens writes,
134 E. Sierpe / Computers in Human Behavior 21 (2005) 127145

My Dear Sir, . . . In addressing these few words of thankfulness to the creator of the Sad Fortunes
of the Rev. Amos Barton, and the sad love-story of Mr. Gill, I am (I presume) bound to adopt the
name that it pleases that excellent writer to assume. I can suggest no better one: but I should have
been strongly disposed, if I had been left to my own devices, to address the said writer as a woman. I
have observed what seem to me to be such womanly touches, in those moving ctions, that the as-
surance on the title-page is insucient to satisfy me, even now. If they originated with no woman, I
believe that no man ever before had the art of making himself, mentally, so like a woman since the
world began (Dickens, January 17, 1858, also cited partially in Rubin & Greene, 1995).

Dickens had correctly inferred that the author of the rst two stories in Scenes of
clerical life was a woman despite the authors use of a male pseudonym.

5. Revisiting Hymes and communicative competence

The ability of speakers to associate textual linguistic events with gender categories
and, consequently, identify the gender of communicators is consistent with what
Hymes (1972) called communicative competence. This competence is acquired during
childhood and deeply ingrained in our broad inventory of social skills. Hymes views
on competence dier from Chomskys and that of his contemporaries in that it
emphasizes the social aspects of communication. This perspective evolved from the
failure of the transformational generative grammar enterprise to account for the
sociocultural features of language and language use. The impetus for this revised
approach was Chomskys sole preoccupation with
an ideal speakerlistener, in a completely homogeneous speech community, who knows its language
perfectly and is unaected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, dis-
tractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors (Chomsky, 1965, p. 3).

Hymes criticized Chomsky and argued that such view is incorrect because:
We have to account for the fact that a normal child acquires knowledge of sentences, not only as
grammatical, but also as appropriate. He or she acquires competence as to when to speak, when
not, and as to what to talk about with whom, when, where, in what manner. In short, a child be-
comes able to accomplish a repertoire of speech acts, to take part in speech events, and to evaluate
their accomplishment by others. This competence, is integral with attitudes, values, and motivation
concerning language, its features and uses, and integral with competence for, and attitudes toward,
the interrelation of language with the other code of communicative conduct. . . . The acquisition of
such competency is of course fed by social experience, needs, and motives, and issues in action that
is itself a renewed source of motives, needs, experience (Hymes, 1972, p. 277278).

The fact that Hymes, model has been ignored by those who argue that CMC
can neutralize gender identities is surprising, especially if we consider the evidence
that has emerged. Long before the proliferation and acceptance of CMC, Edelsky
(1977) provided empirical support for Hymes theoretical contribution with her
study of gender stereotypes among adults and their acquisition by school-aged
children. The results of her study demonstrated that communicative competence is
acquired at an early age and that knowledge about the gender appropriateness of
linguistic events is part of this competence. She also suggested that communicative
competence
 E. Sierpe / Computers in Human Behavior 21 (2005) 127145 135

involves both production and interpretation, including interpretations of social intent and judg-
ments about appropriateness. People not only talk; they interpret language (including its absence)
in the light of their expectations that the social structure will be enacted linguistically. In view of the
power position of the sexes, and the role attributes assigned and inculcated on the basis of sex, it is
reasonable to expect that not only people produce language dierently depending on their sex, but,
also, that they have the competence to interpret language as sex-linked (Edelsky, 1977, p. 225).

There is also a substantial body of literature on textual gender distinctiveness that

touches directly or indirectly on the problem of communicative competence and our
ability to associate linguistic events with gender categories. Given our present con-
cern, reviewing this literature is important because it does not support the claim that
electronic communication is anonymous, at least not from a gender standpoint.

6. Gender-typical written language

In one of the earliest studies in the area of gender language distinctiveness in

textual environments, Emig (1971) reported that female 12th graders showed pref-
erence for expressive writing assignments while males from the same grade group
favored informative writing. Flynn (1983) also found dierences in male and female
composition writing. In her study, she found that male writers were more likely to
write about male subjects such as gun control, nuclear power, cars, exploration,
and rebellion against authority. They also made references to other males in dis-
cussing adolescent rebellion, and in describing memorable experiences. Female
writers, on the other hand, selected topics related to personal interaction, clothing,
accommodation to the status quo, or frustration unrelieved by confrontation or
overt expression of anger (Flynn, 1983, p. 4). Similarly, Keroes (1986) reported that
themes related to interpersonal relationships were more likely to appear in womens
writing and that themes emphasizing autonomy were more likely to appear in mens.
In a slightly dierent setting, Hiatt (1977) focused on the stylistic features that
characterize the writing of men and women by examining randomly selected, ve-
hundred-word passages from one hundred English-language books. She concluded
that women write fewer long sentences, use fewer exclamation points, more paren-
theses, and oer more reasons and justications for their arguments. After analyzing
a corpus of two hundred thousand words, she also found several adverbs used only
by women and several used only by men. In her sample of non-ction books, she
found that only men used consequently, strictly, and surely and that only women
used cheerfully, desperately, and scarcely (Hiatt, 1977, p. 94). Mulac, Studley, and
Blau (1990) also found distinctive gender patterns in the writing of 4th-, 8th-, and
12th-grade students. Their ndings, however, were not always conclusive.

7. Language stereotypes

Research on language stereotypes, that is, widely held beliefs regarding the
characteristics of male and female language, supports the view that language is
136 E. Sierpe / Computers in Human Behavior 21 (2005) 127145

gender-linked and that competent speakers can pass judgment on its appropriate-
ness. Although work in this area is extensive and has been reviewed elsewhere (see
Rubin & Greene, 1992), two studies have special signicance when we consider the
problem of gender anonymity in CMC.
Kramer (1975) asked students to identify cartoon captions taken from The New
Yorker, Playboy, Cosmopolitan, and Ladies Home Journal as male or female. In her
study, the student participants correctly identied the gender of the speaker in
almost 80% of the cases. She also found that the male and female participants were
using the same linguistic stereotypes in assigning the captions to male or female
speakers (Kramer, 1975, p. 626).
Stereotypes regarding gender-typical language are not conned to the interpre-
tation of cartoon captions, however. Waters (1975) focused on the identication of
papers written by native speakers of English attending college. Her study is inter-
esting in that she did not rely on students for the provision of gender judgments or
on her own analytical insights but, rather, on a panel of judges consisting of ve
female and ve male college English teachers. Of the six hundred judgments pro-
vided 68% were correct. She also found that individual judges varied in accuracy.
Four scored above 70% and one of these was 80% correct. Waters study is signi-
cant because of its insights on how the panel of judges justied the judgments they
provided. Although the subject of a paper was often used by the judges as well as
specic lexical choices, strategies relying on perspective and tone proved the most
eective. Their use resulted in a higher proportion of correct judgments. The judges
also found that papers written by males were more reserved, less emotional, and
more likely to have mechanical, mathematical, geographical, and utilitarian con-
cerns. In contrast, female-authored papers were more conversational, warm,
friendly, and emotional. They were also more likely to address social concerns,
human needs, and values.

8. The problem of gender judgments in CMC

Careful consideration of the issues involved in the problem of gender identica-

tion in CMC and how users interpret texts leads to the isolation of three, potentially
quantiable variables. The rst variable is the ability of CMC users to provide
gender judgments. The second is the ability of CMC users to provide accurate
judgments, something dierent and what makes Hymes model particularly relevant
to the problem of gender identication in CMC. The third variable relates to the
concept of certainty. Certainty comprises the intensity of the belief that a particular
author is male and female, an issue I will discuss in greater detail at a later stage since
it represents the strength of the relationship between textual markedness and users
expectations regarding the enactment of appropriate gender roles.
The distinction between the provision of judgments (female/male) and the pro-
vision of accurate judgments (correct/incorrect) is necessary to dierentiate the
provision of statements or judgments from the issue of accuracy. This parallels the
dierence between competence and performance advanced by Chomsky. However,
 E. Sierpe / Computers in Human Behavior 21 (2005) 127145 137

the distinction extends beyond underlying syntactic structures or any other rule-
governed structure as suggested by the advocates of the Chomskyan school of
grammar. Whether we talk about underlying knowledge in the sense of syntactic
structures or the social aspects of communicative events, competence is what one
knows. Performance is what one actually says or does in a particular situation. In
this sense, the ability of CMC users to provide gender judgments represents their
performance. Their ability to issue correct judgments, on the other hand, is a re-
ection of their competence or, more precisely in Hymes terms, their communicative
competence.
The distinction between being able to provide a judgment when asked to do so by
means of a simple question (e.g., Can you tell whether this message was written by a
man or a woman) and being able to identify an electronic communicator is important.
A gender judgment obtained in response to a question may not necessarily have a
direct correspondence to an individuals communicative competence. Uncontrolled,
extraneous variables such as the attention given to the task and the mood or attitude
of an individual participant while performing the assigned task may interfere with its
execution. Meta-linguistic awareness may also vary among individuals.
In essence, judgments can only be interpreted as performance representing un-
derlying knowledge (competence). As representations of performance, gender judg-
ments should not be construed as being necessarily perfect or as having a direct
correspondence with the underlying knowledge. They may include systematic er-
rors. They could even include inadvertent mistakes due to carelessness or lack of
attention.
From a methodological perspective, the distinction between competence and
performance and the parallel representation of this distinction in the ability to
provide gender judgments (performance) and the ability to provide accurate judg-
ments (competence) is important. Attempts to observe competence in CMC research
settings will always be subject to the imperfections of performance. Distractions,
unwillingness to provide judgments for fear of being politically incorrect (e.g., fear of
stereotyping) are potential sources of interference in the observation of competence
and should be guarded against by researchers. Data-collection instruments designed
to extract gender judgments such as those use by Savicki et al. (1999) and Sierpe
(2002) can only record performance.
The second issue in need of consideration when we address the problem of gender
distinctiveness and gender identication in CMC relates to the problem of certainty.
The expected variability involved in the process related to the detection of gender
cues discussed earlier suggests that in situations where CMC users are able to pro-
vide judgments their judgments may vary with respect to the certainty with which
they are issued. In some circumstances, CMC users may have a high degree of
certainty, while in others they may only have a low degree. This may be inuenced by
the nature of a particular electronic text in terms of its richness and by the char-
acteristics of the individual providing the judgment. Overall, however, one would
expect a certain level of agreement among linguistically competent CMC users since
they would share a certain type of knowledge as to what constitutes men or womens
language, appropriate or inappropriate use.
138 E. Sierpe / Computers in Human Behavior 21 (2005) 127145

In CMC research, accounting for the variability underlying the identication of

the gender of electronic communicators requires a reformulation of the question
needed to elicit gender judgments. Rather than asking only for a specic statement as
suggested earlier, the question would also have to elicit a degree of certainty, for
instance: How certain are you that the person who wrote this message is male or
female?

9. Markedness and expectations

However, in isolation from a broad socio-theoretical perspective, the issue of

gender judgments in CMC has limited value. In fact, establishing that uent speakers
have the ability to provide gender judgments or even the ability to correctly identify
the gender of electronic communicators with a high degree of consistency would do
little to advance our knowledge of CMC. More signicant is gaining an under-
standing of how this phenomenon is situated in a social context and how a dominant
ideology is embedded in CMC practice. In this realm, the association between the
identication of electronic communicators and the outcome of the process of im-
pression formation has considerably greater signicance.
As one may recall, the isolation of variables associated with the identication of
electronic communicators was based on the argument that writers leave traces of
their gender identity in the texts they produce and that in the process of textual
interpretation these traces emerge as gender cues. However, the detection of gender
cues, a key issue in the formulation of gender judgments in CMC, does not operate in
isolation. Nor can we say that the process associated with the characterization or
assessment of individual electronic communicators operates independently. The
identication and assessment of electronic communicators should be understood as a
single process with potentially dierent observable outcomes.
When one reects on this issue one cannot help but conclude that the outcomes in
relation to identication and impression formation (i.e., assessment and character-
ization) are largely dependent on the relationship between markedness and expec-
tations. Before addressing the concept of expectations, however, it would be
worthwhile reviewing the concept of markedness. This is something that was alluded
to earlier in the context of how social actors mark the texts they produce.
Markedness has a long tradition in linguistics and is usually applied to analyses in
the areas of morphology, phonology, semantics and even syntax (Soblowiak, 1997).
As originally proposed by Nikolay Trubetzkoy of the Prague school of linguistics,
markedness refers to the modication of segments to convey a meaning that is absent
from the neutral or unmarked form.
Although markedness falls within the boundaries of linguistics, the feminist cri-
tique of language often refers to this concept. However, the concept is not always
labeled and used as it is in the eld of linguistics. In the feminist critique of language,
the problem of male dominance in language and the resulting subjugation of women
to secondary status is dened as androcentrism or the male as norm. This de-
nition stems from the understanding that linguistic structures and human commu-
 E. Sierpe / Computers in Human Behavior 21 (2005) 127145 139

nication processes represent sites embedded with the dominant patriarchal structures
that operate in most societies. This view holds that womens language deviates from
the established, dominant male norm. In this context, the concept of markedness is
extremely important because it can account for the representation of gendered
language (realized in distinctiveness or gender-typical language) as well as the
problem of gender in CMC practice.
However, to understand its potential, the concept of markedness needs to be freed
from the limitations that have dened precise boundaries to its operation in specic
linguistic structures. In a broad social context, markedness needs to be interpreted as
being implicated in the process of textual production and interpretation. In this
sense, authors, electronic or otherwise mark the texts they produce with their
social identity. Given the importance of gender in human identity, it is not sur-
prising, then, for individuals to mark their gender identity in the texts they produce
and for competent communicators to be able to decode gender distinctiveness. This
is why gender judgments are possible and why those who have investigated this issue
have concluded that judgments can be provided and that they are accurate. The
marking of texts is also not limited to specic lexical choices. Marking encompasses
and extends to the totality of the expression of the individual human experience,
for instance, language, beliefs, preferences, motivations, attitudes, behaviors, and
relationships.
From this perspective, the problem of gender identication in electronic com-
munication does not rest on an authors use of gender-appropriate or gender-typical
language as one can derive from the direct application of Hymes model but on the
entire repertoire of human expression. External support for this argument can be
found in the work of Savicki et al. (1999), the only researchers who have addressed
the problem of gender judgments in CMC to date. Although Savicki, Kelley and
Oesterreich dened the messages they used to elicit judgments as belonging to two
distinct categories, namely, high- and low group development communication style
(HCS/LCS) a dichotomous structure that parallels beliefs regarding the nature of
male and female language they concluded that,
although language may provide cues to the gender of CMC message authors, the other factors listed
by judges in this study give hints that researchers must go beyond language to nd the cues to gen-
der in the text-based CMC medium (Savicki et al., 1999, p. 194).

Although Savicki et al. (1999) did not give further insights into what the other
factors were, the ones used in their study and which participants were asked to rank
to justify their judgments included:
(1) length of message; (2) spelling and grammar; (3) coarse language; (4) how much people talked
about themselves; (5) how many opinions they had; (6) how much they argued; (7) the content of
the message; (8) friendliness; (9) how strongly they stated their opinions; and (10) whether or not
they talked directly to another group member (Savicki et al., 1999, p. 189).

The fact that the factors listed by the judges in Savicki, Kelley and Oesterreichs
study extended beyond linguistic features is not surprising and suggest that the
identication of electronic communicators is not bound exclusively to language but
to the totality of social expression.
140 E. Sierpe / Computers in Human Behavior 21 (2005) 127145

Leaving the problem of social or gender markedeness aside for the time being, one
must also consider that the ability of CMC users to interpret the markings that are
embedded in a textual representation is dependent on their expectations. Despite
their importance, users expectations have not been given sucient consideration in
the existing literature. Our ability as competent speakers and social actors to asso-
ciate linguistic (or social) events with specic gender categories is grounded on, and
directly linked to Hymes concept of communicative competence. As socially com-
petent individuals, we have a well-developed sense of what is appropriate (or inap-
propriate) and we expect linguistic or social events to take place in certain ways and
conform to existing, dominant practices. While we may not be consciously aware of
our expectations in everyday situations, our ability to provide judgments is nothing
more than a measure of the extent to which the available evidence meets our ex-
pectations in terms of what constitutes socially appropriate behavior. And it is in this
context where socially appropriate captures the multidimensionality of human
expression.
What this suggests is that gender judgments in CMC do not occur because of our
ability to transform traces into gender cues. Gender judgments occur when the
available evidence (i.e., markedness) is consistent with our expectations of appro-
priateness. In this sense, appropriateness is not limited to linguistic expression but
also to attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. It also seems that expectations have
clearly dened delimiters. The boundaries that dene and limit our expectations are
evident when we consider that judgments can be incorrect (cf., Sierpe, 2002). Only by
considering the relationship between markedness and expectations we can explain
why judgments can and are sometimes in error. Errors in gender judgments occur
when the available evidence crosses the boundaries that dene what we believe to be
appropriate for a man or a woman. From this perspective, the accuracy of judgments
is not important. What is important in textual CMC environments is how CMC
users rely on the existing conceptual models to reduce the tension that exists between
the available evidence and their expectations.
Although in their research Savicki et al. (1999) did attribute the accuracy of
gender judgments to users expectations, their observations were limited to the
problems posed by the fact that users with the highest level of CMC experience
(dened as those who used CMC on a daily basis) were not as accurate in their
judgments as those with less experience (dened as those who had used CMC only a
few times). On this point, Savicki, Kelley and Oesterreich argued that the expecta-
tions of the most experienced users regarding the distribution of high group devel-
opment communication style (HCS) within a naturally occurring sample of
messages, which was not present in the research sample they used, contributed to a
higher level of inaccuracy.
This interpretation is problematic although it is understandable given the nature of
Savicki, Kelley and Oesterreichs work. The messages they used for data collection
were all part of a single discussion or topical thread. While the explanation oered by
Savicki, Kelley and Oesterreich is consistent with the characteristics of the messages
they used to elicit responses from their research participants, it cannot apply to sit-
uations where a message is independent from any other messages a user has received.
 E. Sierpe / Computers in Human Behavior 21 (2005) 127145 141

10. Reconsidering the importance of certainty

The complexity of the problem of gender identication in CMC, as evidenced in

what was outlined earlier, suggests a need to reconsider and redene the concept of
certainty. As a variable, certainty was initially dened as the belief CMC users have
on the accuracy of their judgments. In that context, certainty was associated ex-
clusively with the process of identication and the provision of judgments. Cer-
tainty was also conceptualized as being largely dependent on the characteristics of
texts in terms of their richness and to some degree on the characteristics of the
respondents or judges.
However, further reection suggests that certainty is perhaps one of the most
important variables operating in CMC and that its importance extends beyond
gender judgments. Certainty is not simply a reection of condence in ones judg-
ments and their accuracy or something that is subject to variation simply because of
a texts richness or, potentially, our characteristics as individuals. Certainty is the
manifestation of the strength of the relationship between social markedness and our
expectations.
From a theoretical perspective, the conscious expression of certainty and the
choice of a particular anchor point along a continuum is simply a manifestation
of the extent to which markedness (the available evidence) is associated with our
expectations. If one assumes that texts are always marked from a social and
consequently a gender standpoint, a judgment accompanied by a low degree of
certainty does not signify the absence of gender cues, but rather, a discrepancy
between markedness and our expectations. Although variations among individuals
in the level of certainty expressed for a single message could be attributed to
dierent degrees of perceptual ability and other extraneous variables, they are
likely to be dictated by dierent expectations. This would explain potential
variations in expressed certainty in the judgments provided for an individual
message.
In this context, certainty should be interpreted as a representation of the con-
nection between identication and assessment. The expression of certainty is not
entirely dependent on the richness of a text in terms of the number of gender cues it
has or its markedness. Certainty is a representation of the convergence between
textual markedness, from a linguistic as well as a social standpoint, and the evalu-
ative structure associated with gender roles and their performance. From this per-
spective, the certainty with which we provide judgments reects the extent to which a
text and everything that is embodied in it meets our expectations. On the one hand, a
high level of certainty is a reection of our satisfaction with the extent to which the
expected gender roles and their performance have been enacted in a textual repre-
sentation. A low level of certainty, on the other hand, suggests a misalignment be-
tween our expectations and the enactment of gender roles both from a linguistic and
socio-behavioral standpoint. Just as it was argued earlier, markedness is not limited
to linguistic or stylistic choices. Markedness is a reection of an authors language,
intent, motivations, and behaviors, that is to say, the total performance or enactment
of the appropriate social and gender role.
142 E. Sierpe / Computers in Human Behavior 21 (2005) 127145

11. Conclusion

Although one could argue that the enactment of gender roles in textual repre-
sentations is something that is inherently neutral in the sense that both men and
women mark the texts they produce in distinctive ways, the available evidence
suggests that there is a bias that favors men (cf., Lott, 1985). This should be of
concern. The enactment of a female gender role is not only regarded as deviant from
the male standard or norm, but it is also socially stigmatized (Sierpe, 2002). This is
perhaps, the most serious implication of gender in CMC practice and one that
should be carefully considered by its advocates and those who see in CMC the be-
ginning of a society free of gender inequalities.
The deviance of a female gender role from the male standard and the pervasive
social stigma associated with its textual enactment would explain why female authors
are routinely assessed in negative terms (Sierpe, 2002). And this is where the true
meaning of markedness lies. Markedness is not limited or exclusively related to
linguistic expression. Markedness is a representation of a particular social structure,
a belief system and a social hierarchy and the place individuals are assigned within
the structure or hierarchy.
These arguments suggest that competence has implications not only in the area of
identication but also in the area of impression formation, that is, in the way we
assess or characterize our conversational partners. If identication and impression
formation are, indeed, a single process with potentially dierent outcomes as sug-
gested earlier, our communicative competence would relate not only to our ability to
associate linguistic events with particular gender categories, but also to our ability to
associate the enactment of social events with the appropriate categories. This would
be an indication that our competence is not communicative but social and that
communicative competence, as initially described by Hymes (1972), is only a subset
of a much larger domain.
Evidence external to CMC research also suggests that our adoption of, and as-
sociation with a particular dominant value system, is manifested in very specic and
predictable outcomes in relation to the way we reward the enactment of what we
deem appropriate or inappropriate. As social actors, we create and recreate the
categories that are socially stigmatized and go on to reward those who enact them
according to the established conventions (cf., Romaine, 1999).
Future research on the problem of gender judgments and assessment in CMC in
dierent cultural or linguistic settings may reveal that the enactment of stigmatized
roles carries certain implications. For example, electronic authors who enact female
roles in alignment with their identity will be associated with the image of the polite,
kind, apologetic, and sweet woman. These characteristics are almost universal and
have been found to hold constant across cultures (Romaine, 1999). Those who fail to
remain in their place will be rewarded accordingly.
In conclusion, the problem of gender identication in CMC is likely to be
grounded exclusively on our understanding of whether gender roles have been en-
acted or performed competently. Our impression of others rests on the extent to
which we feel satised that they have fullled our expectations of social competence
 E. Sierpe / Computers in Human Behavior 21 (2005) 127145 143

(underlying knowledge) and social performance (what is done). We simply expect

women to be nice, kind, sweet, caring, and to ask for help, a characteristic that can
only be interpreted as a manifestation of our expectation that they will know their
place and enact their subordinate status by demonstrating their dependence on
mens strength and superiority.

References

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Collot, M., & Belmore, N. (1993). The situational features and textual dimensions of electronic
language. In A. Crocheti
ere, J.-C. Boulanger, & C. Ouellon (Eds.), Les langues menacees: actes du
Xve congr
es international des linguistes (Vol. 3, pp. 157160). Quebec: Les Presses de lUniversite
Laval.
Collot, M., & Belmore, N. (1996). Electronic language: a new variety of English. In S. C. Herring (Ed.),
Pragmatics and beyond. New series: Vol. 39. Computer-mediated communication: linguistic, social and
cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 1328). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dickens, C. (1858). Letter from Charles Dickens to George Eliot, 17th January, 1858. In J. W. Cross (Ed.),
George Eliots life as related in her letters and journals (Vol. 2, pp. 23). Boston: Estes and
Lauriat.
Edelsky, C. (1977). Acquisition of an aspect of communicative competence: learning what it means to talk
like a lady. In S. Ervin-Tripp & C. Mitchell-Kernan (Eds.), Child discourse (pp. 225258). New York:
Academic Press.
Eliot, G. (1858). Scenes of clerical life. Edinburgh: William Blackwood.
Emig, J. A. (1971). The composition processes of twelfth graders. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers
of English.
Flynn, E. A. (1983). Gender dierence and student writing. In Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Conference on College Composition and Communication (p. 399), Detroit, Michigan. ERIC document.
ED 233.
Herring, S. C. (1992). Gender and participation in computer-mediated linguistic discourse. ERIC
document (p. 552). ED 345.
Herring, S. C. (1994a). Gender dierences in computer-mediated communication: bringing familiar
baggage to the new frontier. Keynote talk at panel entitled Making the Net*Work*: is there a Z39.50 in
gender communication? American Library Association Annual Convention, Miami, Florida, June 27,
1994. Also available as an electronic document at: http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/gender/herring.txt
(retrieved: January 19, 2001).
Herring, S. C. (1994b). Politeness in computer culture: why women thank and men ame. In M. Bucholtz,
A. C. Liang, L. A. Sutton, & C. Hines (Eds.), Cultural performances: Proceedings of Third
Berkeley Women and Language Conference (pp. 278294). Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language
Group.
Herring, S. C. (Ed.). (1996). Pragmatics and beyond. New series: Vol. 39. Computer-mediated
communication: linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 110). Amsterdam: John Benjamins
(Introduction by Susan C. Herring).
Herring, S. C., Johnson, D., & DiBenedetto, T. (1992). Participation in electronic discourse in a feminist
eld. In K. Hall, M. Bucholtz, & B. Moonwomon (Eds.), Locating power: Proceedings of the Second
Berkeley Women and Language Conference (pp. 250262). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and
Language Group, University of California.
Herring, S. C., Johnson, D., & DiBenedetto, T. (1995). This discussion is going too far!: male resistance
to female participation on the Internet. In M. Bucholtz & K. Hall (Eds.), Gender articulated: language
and the socially constructed self (pp. 6796). New York: Routledge.
Hiatt, M. (1977). The way women write. New York: Teachers College Press.
144 E. Sierpe / Computers in Human Behavior 21 (2005) 127145

Hiltz, S. R., & Turo, M. (1978). The network nation: human communication via computer, rst ed.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley (reprinted 1993).
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics:
selected readings (pp. 269293). Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.
Jespersen, O. (1922). The woman. In Language: its nature, development and origin. London: Allen &
Unwin. Reprinted in The feminist critique of language: a reader. D. Cameron (Ed.), London:
Routledge, 1990. pp. 201220.
Keroes, J. (1986). But what do they say? gender and the content of student writing. In Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication (p. 802), New
Orleans, Lousiana. ERIC document. ED 269.
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated
communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 11231134.
Kramer, C. (1975). Stereotypes of womens speech: the word from cartoons. Journal of Popular Culture, 8,
624630.
Lea, M., OShea, T., Fung, P., & Spears, R. (1992). Flaming in computer-mediated communication:
observations, explanations, implications. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communi-
cation (pp. 89112). New York: Harverster.
Lott, B. (1985). The devaluation of womens competence. Journal of Social Issues, 41(4), 4360.
Mills, S. (1995). Feminist stylistics. London: Routledge.
Mulac, A., Studley, L. B., & Blau, S. (1990). The gender-linked language eect in primary and secondary
students impromptu essays. Sex Roles, 23, 439469.
Rakow, L. F. (1988). Gendered technology, gendered practice. Critical Studies in Mass Communication,
5(1), 5770.
Romaine, S. (1999). Communicating gender. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence.
Rubin, D. L., & Greene, K. (1992). Gender typical style in written language. Research in the Teaching of
English, 26, 740.
Rubin, D. L., & Greene, K. (1995). The suppressed voice hypothesis in womens writing: eects of revision
on gender-typical style. In D. L. Rubin (Ed.), Composing social identity in written language (pp. 133
149). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Savicki, V., Kelley, M., & Oesterreich, E. (1999). Judgments of gender in computer-mediated
communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 185199.
Sierpe, E. (2000). Gender and technological practice in electronic discussion lists: an examination of
JESSE, the Library/Information Science Education Forum. Library and Information Science Research,
22(3), 273289.
Sierpe, E. (2001). Gender and participation in computer-mediated LIS education topical discussions: an
examination of JESSE, the Library/Information Science Education Forum. Journal of Education for
Library and Information Science, 42(4, Fall), 339347.
Sierpe, E. (2002). Gender and its relationship to perception in computer-mediated communication.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. McGill University, Montreal, Quebec.
Soblowiak, W. (1997). On the logic of markedness arguments. Electronic document. Available from: http://
elex.amu.edu.pl/~sobkow/ (Retrieved: October 1, 2001).
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1992). Connections: new ways of working in the networked organization.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Steiner, P. (1993). On the Internet, nobody knows you are a dog. Cartoon in The New Yorker, 61.
Wajcman, J. (1991). Feminism confronts technology. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Waters, B. L. (1975). She writes like a woman. In Paper presented at the Southeast Conference on
Linguistics (p. 113), Atlanta, GA. ERIC Document. ED 115.
Witmer, D. F., & Katzman, S. L. (1998). On-line smiles: does gender make a dierence in the use
of graphic accents? Journal of Computer-mediated Communication 2 (4). Electronic docu-
ment. Available from: http://www.jcmc.huji.ac.il/vol2/issue4/witmer1.html (Retrieved: January 19,
2001).
Witmer, D. F., Katzman, S. L., & Coman, R. W. (1997). Smiles and frowns: uses, perceptions, and
consequences of graphic accents in computer-mediated communication. In Paper presented at the
 E. Sierpe / Computers in Human Behavior 21 (2005) 127145 145

Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Montreal, Que., 25 May, 1997.
Electronic version available from: http://www.tky.3web.ne.jp/~skatzman/ica97.htm (Retrieved: Janu-
ary 19, 2001).
Zubo, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: the future of work and power. New York: Basic Books.