Sex Roles‚ Vol. 39 ‚ Nos. 3/4 ‚ 1998
Meta-Analyses of Gender Effects on Conversational
1
Interrup tion : Who‚ What ‚ When ‚ Where ‚ an d How
Kristin J. An derson an d Cam pbell Leap er 2
University of California‚ Santa Cruz
Meta-an alyses of 43 published studies com parin g adult wom en ’s an d m en ’s
in terruption s durin g con versation s were con du cted. Com bin ed sign ificance
levels an d com bin ed effect sizes were an alyzed. Across studies ‚ m en were
sign ifican tly m ore likely than wom en to use in terruption s. This differen ce‚
however‚ was asso ciated with a negligible effect size (d = .15). A m ore
substan tial effect size (d = .33) was fou nd when studies lookin g specifically
at intrusive types of interruption were an alyzed separately. Other m oderator
variables were foun d to be related to gender effects on the use of in trusive
in terru ptio n s. Most n otably‚ repo rts of gen d er d ifferen ces in in tru sive
interru ptions were m ore likely an d larger in m agnitude when either wom en
(versus m en) were first au thors ‚ participan ts were observed in natu ralistic
(versus laboratory) settings ‚ or participants were observed interactin g in grou ps
of three or m ore person s (versus in dyads). These results lend support to a
con textual-in teractive m od el of gen der that em ph asizes the im portan ce of
situation al m oderators on gender-related variation s in social behavior.
O ne of the most widely conteste d areas of ge nde r and language is whether
men inte rrupt their conve rsation partne rs more often than do wome n (e .g. ‚
see Arie s‚ 1996; Crawford ‚ 1995; Tanne n ‚ 1983 ‚ 1994) . Z imme rman and
West (Zimme rman & We st‚ 1975; We st & Zimmerman ‚ 1983) were among
1
This research was supported by research grants from the Academic Senate (No.
503035-19900) and the Social Sciences Division (No. 443060-09523) of the University of
California‚ Santa Cruz to the second author. Jennifer Jipson‚ Jill Denne r‚ and the anonymous
revie wer are thanked for their comments on earlier drafts.
2
To whom correspondence should be addre ssed at Departme nt of Psychology‚ Unive rsity of
California‚ Santa Cruz‚ CA 95064; e-mail: cam@ cats.ucsc.edu
225
0360-0025/98/0800-022 5$15.00/0
Ó
1998 Plenum Publishing Corporation
226
An derson an d Leaper
the first re se arche rs to inve stigate the topic by obse rving casual conve rsation be tween same and mixed-ge nde r pairs. Their work followe d the mode l
put forth by Sacks ‚ Sche gloff ‚ and Jeffe rson (1974) that conve rsations are
orderly‚ whereby one person talks at a time and transitions betwee n speakers occur at the pote ntial end of a unit type (e .g.‚ clause ). That is ‚ when
a speake r has appe are d to reach a possible comple tion point ‚ a change in
spe ake r can le gitim ate ly occur. An inte rruption occurs whe n a se cond
spe aker be gins to speak before a pote ntial transition point occurs (se e Z immerman & West‚ 1975) . Although fe w interruptions occurred in Z immerman and West’s (1975) recorded conve rsations ‚ the patte rn of interruptions
betwee n same - and mixe d-ge nde r interactants was differe nt. In same -gender inte ractions ‚ the distribution of inte rruptions was fairly e qually divide d
be twe e n spe ake rs. In contrast ‚ in mixe d-ge nde r inte ractions men made
nearly all of the inte rruptions of wome n’s spe ech.
Z immerman and We st (1975) conclude d that men ’s dominance in
conve rsation via inte rruption mirrors the ir dominance in conte mporary
western culture . Inte rruption is “ a de vice for e xe rcising powe r and control
in conve rsation ” because it involve s “ violations of speake rs’ turns at talk”
(We st & Z imme rman ‚ 1983 ‚ p. 103) . Inasmuch as men typically e njoy
greate r status and powe r than do wome n in most socie tie s‚ the inference
is that men are more like ly than wome n to assume they are e ntitle d to
take the conve rsational floor. Since We st and Z immerman’s e arly work‚
many studie s have re plicate d their findings (e.g.‚ Bohn & Stutman ‚ 1983;
Brooks ‚ 1982; Case ‚ 1988) . However‚ many othe r studie s e ithe r have found
no ge nde r diffe re nces (e.g.‚ Carli ‚ 1990; Dindia ‚ 1987; Johnson ‚ 1994) or
have found that women inte rrupt more than men (e .g. ‚ Kenne dy & Camden ‚ 1983; Nohara ‚ 1992) .
In a recent narrative re view of article s publishe d betwee n 1965 and
1991 ‚ Jame s and Clarke (1993) conclude d that the re is little e vide nce that
men inte rrupt more than wome n in either same - or mixed-ge nde r inte ractions. Aries (1996) dre w similar conclusions in her narrative revie w of the
literature . James and Clarke furthe r speculate d that women ’s and men ’s
inte rruptions may differ in the ir function (se e also Tanne n ‚ 1994 ‚ for a similar point).
O ne helpful strate gy has bee n to distinguish be tween interruptions
and ove rlaps. Tanne n (1994) de fine d an inte rruption as when a se cond
spe aker usurps anothe r spe aker’s right to continue spe aking by taking the
conve rsational floor in the abse nce of any evide nce that the othe r spe aker
inte nde d to re linquish the turn. In contrast ‚ an ove rlap is whe n a se cond
spe aker begins speaking at what could be a transition-re le vant place such
as the e nd of a clause . Women and members of cultural communitie s she
describe s as “ high involve ment ” often overlap with each othe r in spee ch
Meta-An alyses of Gen der Effects on In terr uption
227
as a way of demonstrating coope ration and enthusiasm. Tanne n propose s
that “ coope rative overlapping [is] supportive rathe r than obstructive ‚ evide nce not of dom ination bu t of participation ‚ not powe r ‚ bu t the
paradoxically re late d dime nsion ‚ solidarity ” (p. 62) . She argue s that by assuming that inte rruption is a monolithic conve rsational de vice “ we are
forced into a position that claims that high involve ment speake rs‚ such as
blacks and Jews and ‚ in many circumstance s‚ wome n ‚ are pushy‚ aggre ssive ‚
or inconside rate or foolishly noisy” (p. 73) .
A META-ANALYTIC APPROACH TO THE LITERATURE
ON INTERRUPTIONS
In the pre se nt revie w‚ meta-analyse s were conducte d in orde r to add r e s s t h e c on t r o ve r s y o ve r wo m e n ’s a n d m e n ’s i n te r r u p t io n s in
conve rsations. Meta-analysis is the statistical integration of results of inde pe nde nt studie s. It provide s a single set of numbe rs that de scribe and
summarize the re sults of inde pe nde nt pie ces of rese arch. Although narrative lite rature re views are useful in summarizing the re sults of a rese arch
domain ‚ meta-analytic revie ws are a useful tool be cause the y simultane ously
take into account the significance le vel‚ the sample size ‚ and the e ffect size
of e ach individual study in order to produce combine d significance le ve ls
and effe ct sizes. Me ta-analysis also allows for the statistical analysis of pote ntial moderator variable s.
O ne of the pote ntial mode rators of ge nde r e ffects on the use of inte rruptions is how inte rruption is operationally de fine d in individual studie s.
The pre sent meta-analyse s distinguishe d betwee n three definitions of inte rruptions: (1) those that were either unde fined or broadly defined in the
original study; (2) those that e xplicitly e xclude d back channe ls and minimal
listening response s (e .g. ‚ “ uh-huh ” ); and (3) those de fine d as intrusive ‚ and
sugge st a dominating motivation on the part of the interrupte r. O ne type
of interruption often defined as intrusive is the “ successful interruption ”
whereby the interrupting speake r succe ssfully take s ove r the conve rsational
floor. Pre vious work has associate d successful interruptions with the manife station of dominance (e .g. ‚ Aries‚ 1996; Kollock ‚ Blumste in ‚ & Schwartz ‚
1985; Natale ‚ Entin ‚ & Jaffe ‚ 1979; Smith-Lovin & Brody‚ 1989; se e James
& Clarke ‚ 1993 for a contrasting vie w). Succe ssful inte rruptions ‚ for example ‚ have bee n rate d by pe ople as more domine e ring than unsucce ssful one s
(McLaughlin ‚ 1984) . Because men have more ofte n bee n associate d with
dominanc e in conve rsation al inte rruption s‚ we hypothe size d that me n
would be found to make more intrusive inte rruptions than women.
228
An derson an d Leaper
Other Possible Moderators of Interruption s
In addition to the ope rational de finition use d ‚ seve ral othe r variable s
may moderate the like lihood and magnitude of ge nde r difference s in inte rruptions. Jame s and Clarke (1992) conclude d their narrative re view of
inte rruptions by stating ‚ “ Lastly‚ the ways in which the results of studie s
may have be en affe cted by such subje ct and situational variable s as age ‚
degre e of intimacy ‚ size of group ‚ and type of interactional conte xt remain
uncle ar.” (p. 295) O the r publication characte ristics such as the year of the
study or the author ’s ge nde r may also mode rate the like lihood of gende r
effe cts (Le ape r‚ Ande rson ‚ & Sande rs‚ 1998) .
Publication Characteristics. Year of publication and the first author ’s
ge nde r are two publication characte ristics that were e xamine d as possible
mode rator variable s. Publication ye ar may act as a mode rator variable to
the extent that either historical change s in gende r equality or change s in
how rese archers conduct their re se arch have had an impact on the like lihood of finding ge nde r differe nces. Some prior meta-analyse s have found
a de crease over time in the numbe r of studie s finding gende r differe nces
on measure s such as mathe matics (Hyde ‚ Fenne ma‚ & Lamon ‚ 1990) and
verbal ability (Hyde & Linn ‚ 1988) . O ve r the ye ars ‚ the pe rformance of
wome n and men has be come more similar in these areas — pe rhaps the
result of increased opportunitie s for women. In their narrative re view of
inte rruptions ‚ James and Clarke (1993) re port that the gende r gap be tween
wome n and men in initiating interruptions has de creased or possibly reversed ove r the ye ars be tween 1965 and 1991. In the pre se nt meta-analysis ‚
we include d studie s that span over a thre e decade pe riod during which
many political and cultural change s challe nge d traditional ge nde r role s.
There fore ‚ we expe cted that ge nde r differe nces in interruptions would decrease ove r time . Howe ve r ‚ we also note the pote ntial counte rvailing
influe nce of methodological advance s in observational research that have
occurred over the years (e.g. ‚ Bake man & Gottman ‚ 1986; Bakeman &
Q ue ra‚ 1995) . For e xample ‚ Hall (1978) found that ge nde r diffe re nces in
nonve rbal de coding were more common in more recent studie s. She proposed that recent improve ments in measuring te chnique s may account for
this patte rn rathe r than historical change s in gende r role s.
Anothe r publication characteristic that we conside red was the author ’s
gender. James and Clarke (1993) speculated that the author ’s gender may have
an influence on whether one gender is more likely to interrupt than the other.
However‚ they did not detect any corresponding patterns in the studies they
reviewed. In contrast ‚ meta-analyses on other topics have found a significant
relationship betwee n author ge nder and the magnitude of the gender difference
(Eagly & Carli ‚ 1981; Leaper et al.‚ 1998). For instance ‚ Leaper et al. (1998)
Meta-An alyses of Gen der Effects on In terr uption
229
examine d parents ’ talk to their childre n and found a significant relationship
between author gender and the magnitude of the effect size with some measures. When author gender did act as a moderator ‚ men authors found gender
differences more often than women authors. Thus‚ the author ’s own gender
may reflect some sort of researcher bias (Beall‚ 1993). In the present metaanalyses‚ we explored whether or not author gender moderate s the like lihood ‚
the magnitude ‚ or the direction of gender effects on interruption.
Aspects of the Interactional Setting as Possible Moderators
of Interruptions
We examine d several aspe cts of the interactive conte xt as pote ntial moderators of interruptions. Recent conte xtual-inte ractive mode ls of ge nder-typing
(e.g.‚ Beall ‚ 1993; Deaux & Major ‚ 1987; Leaper et al.‚ 1998) sugge st that the
incide nce and magnitude of gende r effects may large ly depend on aspects of
the particular situation. In contrast‚ essentialist models of gender argue for
the existence of inhere nt differences between women and men that are responsible for observe d variations in behavior. A contextual-interactive model
of gende r differences in interruption would be supporte d if aspects of the interactive setting — such as the characte ristics of participants ‚ the task‚ or the
setting — were found to moderate the like lihood of gender effects.
Characteristics of the Participan ts. First‚ we conside red factors associate d with the relationship be tween the inte ractants such as ge nder composition ‚ group size ‚ and the familiarity of the interactants. James and Clarke
(1993) found that there is a tendency for men to inte rrupt more often in
mixed-ge nder than in same-gender interactions. The y spe culate that if the
major de terminant of interruption is simply having more status or power
than one ’s conve rsational partne rs‚ then gende r effe cts on interruptions
should be large r in mixed-ge nde r than same -gende r inte ractions. In contrast ‚
Aries (1996) inferre d from her review that there was no patte rn of gender
difference in interruption related to the ge nder composition of the group.
We sought to clarify this matter in the prese nt meta-analyse s.
Group size was anothe r pote ntial moderator variable e xamine d here .
We expe cted that men would be more like ly to inte rrupt in large r groups
than in dyads. If interrupting is a demonstration of dominance ‚ the ne ed
to display dominance would be gre ater in a more public situation with many
witne sse s than in one -to-one interactions in which pressure to act more
stere otype d may be le ssene d. In the ir narrative revie w of inte rruptions ‚
James and Clarke (1993) inferred a slight tende ncy for men to interrupt
more than women in mixe d-ge nde r groups than in dyads. We sought to
confirm this interpre tation with the pre se nt meta-analyse s.
230
An derson an d Leaper
Anothe r possible mode rator variable that we inve stigate d was the familiarity of the inte ractants. Prior work has found that unacquainte d pe ople
are more like ly than acquainte d pe ople to rely on ge nde r-ste reotype d e xpe ctations to guide the ir be havior ‚ whe re as acquainte d pe rsons such as
close friends and intimate s are more apt to re ly on individual characte ristics
(Drass ‚ 1986; Wood & Karten ‚ 1986) . Exte nding this rationale to interruptions ‚ men may be more like ly than wome n to interrupt most e spe cially in
unacquainte d inte ractions be cause more dominating behavior may be e xpected of the m. Conve rse ly‚ to the exte nt that strange rs may fee l more
social pre ssure to be polite ‚ there might be fewer ge nde r difference s in
inte rruption be tween strange rs than betwee n frie nds or romantic partne rs.
These two views were teste d in the pre se nt revie w whe n we compare d inte rruptions be tween strange rs‚ frie nds ‚ and romantic partne rs.
Characteristics of the Activity Setting. In addition to examining characteristics of the interactants ‚ we also examine d the nature of the task and the
setting as potential moderators of women’s and men’s interruptions. First‚
we compare d whe ther the obse rvation took place in a laboratory or in a naturalistic setting. Although James and Clarke (1993) saw no consiste nt gender
difference in inte rruptions based on observational se tting whe n the y reviewed
the literature ‚ an effect could emerge in a meta analysis. We expected that
if men were found to make more intrusive interruptions than women‚ they
would be more like ly to occur in naturalistic settings. In laboratory settings ‚
polite ness norms may be more salie nt and thereby reduce the like lihood of
domine ering behaviors such as intrusive interruptions.
Second‚ we compare d studies that examined instrumental ‚ expressive ‚ or
unstructure d topics in order to determine whether the type of activity moderated interruptions. James and Clarke (1993) suggeste d that to the extent that
a given topic is perceived to be women’s or men’s presumed area of expertise ‚
either the woman or the man may feel more of an “ authority” in that area
and ‚ consequently ‚ may fee l more justifie d in making inte rruptions. Aries (1996)
proposed that during unstructure d discussions ‚ women frequently made affiliative overlaps in their conve rsations with each other. Following these views‚ we
hypothesize d that women would make more interruptions during expressive
topics ‚ while men would make more interruptions during instrumental topics.
Based on Aries’ interpretation ‚ we expected that women would make more
interruptions during unstructured than structured discussions.
Finally‚ we e xamine d the le ngth of observation as a pote ntial moderator. Prior re se arch has sugge ste d that longe r observation time s tend to
be a more valid measure of social interaction qualitie s (see Aries‚ 1996) .
With longe r obse rvations ‚ an observer is more apt to see pe ople ’s stylistic
variations. Therefore ‚ we e xpe cted that gende r diffe re nces in interruptions
would be large r as the le ngth of the observation increase d.
Meta-An alyses of Gen der Effects on In terr uption
231
To summarize ‚ our meta analysis addre ssed the “ Who ‚ What ‚ Where ‚
When ‚ and How? ” of ge nde r e ffects on conve rsational inte rruption. First ‚
the most pressing issue in the re search literature has be en the “ Who? ”
que stion: Do men and wome n diffe r in the ir like lihood of inte rruption?
Howe ver‚ the answer to this que stion may de pe nd on the “ How? ” que stion.
Dete cting ge nde r diffe rence s in interruption de pe nds large ly on how the
inte rruption is de fine d. Additionally ‚ gende r differe nces in inte rruption may
depend on the “ What? ‚” “ When? ‚” and “ Whe re ? ” aspe cts of the inte ractive
context. What activitie s are most like ly to be associate d with ge nde r difference s in inte rruption? For instance ‚ is there a differe nce betwee n structure d
and unstructure d tasks? When are inte rruptions like ly to occur? In othe r
words ‚ do e ithe r the year of the study or the length of observation mode rate
the like lihood of ge nde r effe cts? Finally ‚ where are gende r diffe rence s like ly
to take place ? Do ge nde r effe cts on interruption diffe r in naturalistic ve rsus
research laboratory se ttings?
METHOD
Literatu re search
Forty-thre e publishe d studie s e xamining women ’s and men ’s use of
inte rruptions were colle cted through a varie ty of sources. Ten studie s were
counte d twice be cause they had more than one useable analysis resulting
3
in a total of 53 hypothe sis te sts. Most of the studie s we re ide ntifie d
through compute rized searches of the Psychological Abstracts. We also reviewed relevant studie s cited in the se article s and in Jame s and Clarke ’s
(1993) and Arie s (1996) re views. The date s of publication for the colle cted
studie s range d from 1965 to 1996.
Three selection criteria were used: (1) O nly studie s that tested for
ge nde r effe cts on interruptions were include d. (2) Only studie s using quantitative obse rvational measure s were include d. (3) Only studie s publishe d
in e ithe r re se arch journals or books were include d. Although publishe d
studie s may be more biase d than unpublishe d studie s toward reporting significant e ffe cts‚ this was not indicate d with our sample of studie s (see
description of fail-safe te st in Results).
3
Spe cifically‚ Carli (1990) ‚ Jones e t al. (1995) ‚ Natale et al. (1979) ‚ Roge r & Schumacher
(1983) ‚ and Smeltze r and Watson (1986) separately analyzed two differe nt measures of
interruption. Kollock e t al. (1985) analyzed both friends and romantic partners. Bilous and
Kraus (1988) ‚ Nohara (1992) ‚ Rede ker and Maes (1996) and Simkins-Bullock & Wildman
(1991) separately examined interruptions used in same- and mixed-gende r pairs. This
information is detailed in Table I.
232
An derson an d Leaper
There were se ve ral categorie s of studie s that had to be e xclude d from
the se meta-analyse s: First‚ studie s with only qualitative analyse s and no infe rential statistics could not be include d (Goldbe rg‚ 1990; Murata ‚ 1994;
Thomas ‚ Roge r‚ & Bull ‚ 1983; Woods ‚ 1989) . Second ‚ studie s that did not
report a sample size were e xclude d (Be attie ‚ 1977; Murray & Cove lli ‚ 1988;
Willis & Williams ‚ 1976) . Third ‚ studie s that include d only me n (Rim ‚ 1977;
Thimm ‚ Rademacher‚ & Kruse ‚ 1995) ‚ only wome n (Fe rguson ‚ 1977) ‚ or
didn ’t compare women and men (Drass‚ 1986; Hawkins ‚ 1991) were e xclude d. Fourth ‚ studie s e xamining pe rceptions of othe rs who inte rrupt were
e xclude d (Chambliss & Fee ny‚ 1992; Hawkins ‚ 1991; Robinson & Reis ‚
1989) . Finally‚ studie s that did not obse rve face -to-face inte ractions were
exclude d (e .g.‚ talking on the te lephone ; Mott & Pe trie ‚ 1995) .
Moderator Variables
Several variable s that may moderate the magnitude of e ffects associated with women’s and men’s interruptions were examined. The characte ristics
for each mode rator variable associate d with e ach study are presented in
Table I.
Participan t Demograph ic Characteristics. Studie s including sample s
othe r than middle -class ‚ Europe an Americans were too few to permit te sting for e thnicity or e conomic status as pote ntial mode rator variable s. Also ‚
although the re was variation in the geographical re gions of the differe nt
studie s‚ the e ffects in the prese nt study did not de monstrate any consiste nt
or meaningful patte rns across the differe nt meta-analyse s. Conse que ntly‚
the se re sults are not pre se nte d.
Interruption Classification. The operational definitions of interruptions in
the 53 hypothe sis tests varied widely. When considering all studie s collapsing
across operational definitions ‚ we will use either the term total interruptions or
overall interruptions. Otherwise ‚ interruptions were divide d into three categories
indicating increasing specificity of the definition: The first category of interruptions were general interruptions and consisted of studies in which interruptions
were either not specifically defined or the operational definitions include d
broade r criteria such as affiliative overlaps ‚ unsuccessful interruptions ‚ and ‚ in
some instances ‚ back channels and minimal response s (e.g.‚ “uh-huh ”). Aries
(1996) reports that one way to classify interruptions is to make explicit whether
the definition has exclude d or included back channe ls and minimal response s.
Correspondingly‚ the second cate gory of inte rruptions we re those in which back
channels were excluded in the definition of an interruption ‚ but were still broadly
defined. For instance ‚ the definitions include d in this category may have allowed
for affiliative overlaps. The third category include d intrusive interruptions which
Meta-An alyses of Gen der Effects on In terr uption
233
indicate d an attempt on one speaker to usurp the other spe aker’s conversational
turn. Some of the studie s in this category measured what were calle d “successful” interruptions whereby one speake r stops talking as a result of another
speaker’s incursion. The two authors were able to classify interruption categories
with high reliability ( k = .90). According to Bakeman and Gottman (1986) ‚ kappa
value s above .75 reflect “excellent” levels of agreement.
Other Moderator Variables. The following 8 moderator variable s were
also examine d: (1) The year of the study re fe rs to the year the study was
publishe d. (2) Author gen der refers to whe the r the first author of the study
was a woman or a man. (3) G ender com position refers to whether the participants were observed in same- or mixe d-ge nde r inte ractions ‚ or both (the
latte r case include s studie s that did not analyze same- and mixe d-ge nde r
groups se parate ly) . (4) G rou p size re fe rs to whethe r participants were observed e ithe r in pairs or in groups of 3 or more . (5) Fam iliarity pertains
to whether the interactants were strange rs‚ friends‚ romantic partne rs‚ or
anothe r type of familiar re lationship. (6) The observation al setting contrasted whether obse rvations took place in either a re se arch laboratory or
a naturalistic se tting. (7) The activity structu re distinguishe d betwee n situations that were e ithe r unstructure d ‚ instrume ntal (e .g. ‚ a proble m-solving
task) ‚ e xpre ssive (e .g.‚ a se lf-disclosure task) ‚ or othe rwise unclassifiable
(e.g.‚ including a combination of tasks). (8) Finally‚ the length of observation
(in minute s) was take n into account.
RESULTS
Statistical Analyses
We employe d Mulle n’s (1989) meta-analysis software to carry out the
statistical analyse s. Mulle n ’s program provide s the following information
for the meta-analysis of effe ct sizes: diffuse comparisons ‚ combinations ‚ focused comparisons ‚ and blocking by leve ls of a moderator.
Diffuse Com parison of Significan ce Levels and Effect Sizes. This procedure tests for the ove rall variability around the ave rage study outcome .
Significant tests for the diffuse comparisons of significance levels or e ffect
sizes indicate that the significance le ve ls of the include d studie s or the
strength of e ffects were significantly heteroge neous and may be thought of
as having be en sample d from diffe rent populations (Mulle n ‚ 1989). Additional ly‚ the diffu se com parison te sts compu te a fail-safe nu m be r of
unpublishe d studie s with null results that would be ne eded to counte ract
any obse rve d e ffects. This numbe r is use ful give n the possible bias against
publishing nonsignificant re sults.
Beattie (1981)
b
Bilous & Kraus (1988)
b
Bilous & Kraus (1988)
Bohn & Stutman (1983)
Brooks (1982)
Campbell e t al. (1992)
c
Carli (1990)
c
Carli (1990)
Case (1988)
Craig & Pitts (1990)
Dabbs & Ruback (1984)
De Boe r (1987)
Dindia (1987)
Eakins & Eakins (1976)
Fallon & Guo (1994)
Frances (1979)
Johnson (1994)
c
Jones et al. (1995)
c
Jones et al. (1995)
Kennedy & Camde n (1981)
d
Kollock et al. (1985)
d
Kollock et al. (1985)
LaFrance & Carmen (1980)
Leet-Pellegrini (1980)
Leffle r et al. (1982)
Makri-Tsilipakou (1994)
Marche & Peterson (1993)
Margolin & Wampold (1981)
Martin & Craig (1983)
McLachlan (1991)
McMillan et al. (1977)
c
Natale et al. (1979)
Author
p = .5
t = 1.30
t = 6.18
2
c = 16.02
p < .001
t = 2.83
p = .5
t = 1.48
p < .05
F = 2.36
t = 1.44
2
c = 7.65
p = .5
p = .5
p = .5
p = .5
p = .5
p = .5
p = .5
2
c = 10.21
p < .05
p = .5
F = 2.20
p = .5
p = .5
p < .0001
p = .5
F = 3.07
p = .5
p = .5
t = 6.34
p = .03
Stat
0
.34
¯ 1.62
2.14
.37
.66
0
.40
1.22
¯.89
¯.68
1.91
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
¯ 1.28
¯.54
0
.37
0
0
1.07
0
.58
0
0
1.78
.45
d
45
60
60
30
294
104
118
118
10
38
50
16
60
9
20
88
141
50
50
35
40
30
72
140
56
62
30
78
40
44
98
72
N
a
I
B
B
G
G
G
I
B
G
I
G
I
I
G
G
B
G
I
G
B
B
B
I
B
G
I
I
G
B
B
I
B
M
U
U
M
W
M
W
W
W
M
M
U
W
W
M
W
W
W
W
W
M
M
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
M
W
M
M
M
S
S
M
M
B
B
M
M
S
S
B
M
M
B
B
S
S
M
S
M
S
B
B
M
B
M
B
S
B
B
5
2
2
2
18
8
2
2
10
4
5
2
2
9
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
6
2
M
S
S
S
M
S
S
S
M
M
S
F
S
M
M
S
S
S
S
F
P
F
S
S
S
M
F
P
S
M
S
S
N
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
O
L
N
L
N
L
L
L
L
L
L
N
N
L
L
L
N
L
L
L
L
L
L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U
U
U
I
I
U
I
E
E
I
E
E
M
I
I
U
U
E
U
I
I
U
45
10
10
10
2880
n/a
10
10
180
n/a
20
60
30
n/a
3
14
9
9
9
60
n/a
n/a
7
10
30
585
20
20
4
n/a
30
30
Oper. De f. Author Partne r Size Familiar Setting Activity Length
Table I. Summary of Studie s Testing for Women ’s and Men’s Interruptions
c
p =
F =
p =
F =
p =
p =
Z =
p =
p =
p =
t=
p <
p =
p =
2
c =
2
c =
p <
F =
p =
p =
p <
.5
.23
.5
2.54
.5
.5
2.0
.5
.5
.5
1.36
.001
.5
.5
2.94
3.46
.05
5.15
.5
.5
.03
0
.07
0
.85
¯
0
0
1.63
0
0
0
.47
¯ 1.20
0
0
¯.41
¯.45
.79
¯.74
0
0
1.48
72
168
24
16
8
10
10
56
36
36
36
36
39
39
72
72
20
40
36
64
10
I
B
G
I
I
B
B
I
B
I
B
G
G
G
G
I
B
G
B
G
I
M
M
M
W
W
W
W
M
M
M
M
M
W
W
M
M
M
M
W
W
W
B
M
B
S
M
M
S
M
S
S
S
M
S
M
M
M
S
S
B
B
M
2
6
4
2
2
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
5
2
2
2
2
S
S
S
S
S
M
M
S
S
S
S
M
S
S
M
M
S
S
S
S
S
L
L
L
L
L
O
O
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U
U
M
U
U
30
120
20
10
10
n/a
n/a
8
8
8
15
20
15
15
75
75
120
24
2
20
12
a
Stat = Statistic. d = Cohen ’s d. N = sample size. Oper. Def. = Ope rational De fintion (G = Ge neral‚ B = Explicitly e xcludes backchanne ls‚
I = Intrusive ). Author = First author ’s gender (W = woman ‚ M = man‚ U = unclear). Partne r = Gende r Composition (S = same-gender ‚
M = Mixe d-ge nde r ‚ B = both). Size = Group size. Familiar = Familiarity ( S = strangers ‚ F = friends ‚ P = dating/partne rs ‚ M =
mixed/other). Setting = Observational setting (L = laboratory‚ N = naturalistic ‚ O = other). Activity = Activity type (I = instrumental‚
E = e xpressive ‚ M = mixe d‚ U = unstructured). Le ngth = le ngth of obse rvation in minutes (n/a = information not available ).
b
Study is include d in meta-analysis more than once because it reported results for the same sample in different conditions (see Method
section). An adjusted N was used in the analyse s (see Method section).
c
Study is included in meta-analysis more than once because it reported results for the same sample using more than one operational definition
of interruptions. An adjusted N was use d in the analyses.
d
Study is include d in meta-analysis more than once. Because it reported results for more than one sample ‚ it is treated as two separate
samples.
Natale et al. (1979)
Neme th et al. (1976)
Ng e t al. (1995)
d
Nohara (1992)
d
Nohara (1992)
b
Redeker & Maes (1996)
b
Redeker & Maes (1996)
Roger & Ne sshoever (1987)
c
Roger & Schumacher (1983)
c
Roger & Schumacher (1983)
Rogers & Jones (1980)
Shaw & Sadle r (1965)
d
Simkins-Bullock & Wildman (1991)
d
Simkins-Bullock & Wildman (1991)
c
Smeltzer & Watson (1986)
c
Smeltzer & Watson (1986)
Smith (1977)
Street & Murphy (1987)
Trimboli & Walker (1984)
Welkowitz et al. (1984)
West & Z imme rman (1983)
236
An derson an d Leaper
Combinations of Significance Levels and Effect Sizes. Combinations of significance levels and effect sizes provide information on the typical study outcome across studie s. Combinations of significance levels e stimate the probability
that the p value s of the sample d studies would be obtaine d if the null hypothesis
were true. This procedure uses the standard normal deviate Z (i.e.‚ mean =
0; standard deviation = 1) for significance level. Combinations of effect sizes
estimate the overall magnitude of the effect size across the sample d studie s.
Both unweighte d and weighted (by sample size) combinations of significance
levels and effect sizes are reported.
Fisher’s z and Cohen’s d are two indices of effect size that are reported
here. Cohen (1977) characte rized effect sizes as “ small” when d = .2‚ “medium ”
when d = .5‚ and “large ” when d = .8. Thus‚ an effect size of d = .2 and
above may be viewed as meaningful ‚ whereas an effect size below d = .2 is
conside red trivial in magnitude .
Focused Comparison s of Significance Levels and Effect Sizes. Focused
comparison tests estimate how well a particular mode rator explains variability across studie s. Focused comparisons of significance le vels and effect sizes
test for the re lationship be tween the mode rator and variability across studie s
in e ithe r statistical probabilitie s or effect size s‚ re spectively. Focused comparison tests for categorical moderator variable s were carried out using the
Z statistic. The effects of continuous moderator variable s (ye ar of study and
length of obse rvation) were tested by using regression analyse s with study
sample size as a weighte d factor. Focused comparison te sts are calculate d
only for unweighted scores (Mulle n ‚ 1989) . The re is no accepted method for
computing this type of test for weighte d score s.
Blockin g within Levels of a Moderator. This technique classifies or blocks
studies by levels of a moderator variable allowing for combinations of significance
levels and effect sizes (described above) at each specific level of a moderator.
Comparison tests between each level are also computed. Blocking was carried
out for weighted as well as unweighted scores. Results using both types of scores
are presented in the tables. However‚ when different effects occurred using unweighted versus weighted scores‚ the results from the weighted scores will be given
priority in the text because they adjust for the sample size in each study.
The results from the analyse s are summarize d in Table II for overall
interruptions (i.e.‚ collapsing across operational de finitions) and in Table III
for intrusive inte rruptions. Each table breaks down the numbe r of studie s
(k) ‚ each study’s sample size (N) ‚ significance levels and effect sizes (Fisher’s
z and Cohen’s d) for each of the categorical moderator variable s in re lation
to gender e ffects on the use of interruptions. Effe ct size s with a positive
sign indicate that men interrupte d more than women. The results te sting
for the correlations between the continuous moderator variable s (year of
study and length of observation) are reporte d in the text below.
Meta-An alyses of Gen der Effects on In terr uption
237
OVERALL INTERRUPTIONS
Diffuse comparisons were significant for the combine d significance
2
2
le ve ls ‚ c (52) = 175.92 ‚ p < .001 ‚ and the combine d e ffect size s‚ c (52) =
232.15 ‚ p < .001 ‚ indicating a significant amount of variability among the
52 studie s (hypothe sis tests). The fail-safe numbe r was 31 ‚ indicating that
it would take that many unpublishe d studie s with null re sults to re ve rse
any obse rve d effe cts. Thus ‚ the use of only publishe d studie s did not appe ar
to bias the overall dire ction of findings.
As see n in Table II‚ the combination of significance le vels was significant using either unwe ighte d or weighte d score s. Across studie s‚ men
were significantly more like ly than wome n to inte rrupt. Howeve r‚ the combination of e ffect sizes re vealed that the magnitude of the difference was
negligible (d < .2) using e ithe r unweighte d or weighte d scores.
Operation al Definition
Focused Comparison Tests. Focused comparison tests using unweighted
scores were carried out to test the effect of operational definition (general vs.
back channels excluded vs. intrusive). The results we re not significant for either
combined significance levels‚ Z = .99 ‚ n.s.‚ or combine d effect sizes‚ Z = .99 ‚
n.s.
Blocking. Although the focused comparison tests did not reveal a significant overall e ffect for operational definition as a moderator‚ the blocking analyses suggested a different story. As seen in Table II‚ statistically significant gender
differences with meaningful effect sizes appe ared when studies looked specifically at intrusive interruptions. In contrast ‚ measures of combined significance
levels and combine d effect sizes were negligible when studies looke d at interruptions that either were generally defined or were limited to excluding only
back channels. (However‚ the combine d significance level for general interruptions was significant using weighted but not unweighte d scores.)
To reite rate ‚ the intrusive inte rruption cate gory was the only measure that
was associated with a significant combined significance level and a meaningful
combined effect size using e ither unweighte d or weighted scores. Conse quently‚
subsequent analyses were carried out to test the effects of the other moderator
variables on gender differences in the use of total interruptions (i.e.‚ collapsing
across operational definitions) as well as in the use of intrusive interruptions
in particular. The effects of the moderator variables on total interruptions are
summarized in Table II but are not mentioned any further in the text. The
results from the combinations of significance levels and effect sizes for the 17
studies specifically examining intrusive interruptions are presented in Table III
and are described below.
Dyad
Group (3 or more)
Group Size
Same -gende r
Mixed-ge nder
Both
35
18
17
21
15
22
Me n
Ge nder Composition
28
Women
First Author ’s Gender
Gene ral Inte rruptions
Non-Back Channel Interruption
Intrusive Interruptions
18
18
17
53
Ove rall
Ope rational Definition
k
Moderator Variable
1796
1262
645
1256
1157
1141
1781
1156
1043
859
3058
N
c
2.63 bd
.67 a
.27 a
1.15 a
2.26 ac
3.34 ae
¯ .26 b
1.14 ab
¯ .03 a
2.53 b
2.07
Z
a
.04 a
.10 a
.07 a
.03 a
.08 a
¯.01b
.11 a
.05 a
.02 a
.12 a
.06
Fishe r’s Z
Unweighted
.08
.20
.14
.07
.16
¯ .02
.23
.09
.04
.23
.12
Cohen ’s d
e
.73
e
4.20
¯.32 e
3.36
d
2.40
.46
4.41
d
e
3.00
.09
e
4.05
3.85
Z
.03
.13
.01
.18
.10
.00
.12
.08
0
.16
.07
Weighte d
Fisher ’s Z
Combinations of Significance Levels and Effe ct Sizes
Table II. Effects of Mode rator V ariables on Women ’s and Men’s Ove rall Inte rruptions
.06
.26
.02
.16
.20
00
.25
.15
¯.01
.33
.15
Cohen’s d
Other
3
58
2798
202
111
118
722
2107
1.98 a
.33 a
c
1.47 ab
2.25 ac
¯ .21 a
.04 a
.65 a
.10 a
.04 a
.18 a
.06 a
.01 a
.05 a
.07 a
.21
.08
.37
.12
.02
.09
.14
d
¯ 1.22
3.18
.01
e
¯ 1.18
.77
d
2.75
2.84
¯.30
.15
.01
.08
¯.07
.10
.07
¯.60
.30
.03
.17
¯.14
.20
.13
Unweighted scores with diffe re nt subscripts are significantly different (p < .05). (There is not an accepted comparison test for weighted
scores.) The corre lation betwee n the effe ct size d and year of study was not significant for total interruptions (r = ¯ .01‚ n.s.). The
correlation be tween the e ffect size d and length of observation was not significant (r = .11‚ n.s.).
b
p < .10.
c
p < .05.
d
p < .01.
e
p < .001.
a
Lab
Naturalistic
44
6
4
2
13
Friends
Romantic Partners
Other
Obse rvational Setting
34
Strangers
Familiarity
240
An derson an d Leaper
INTRUSIVE INTERRUPTIONS
First Author’s G ender
Focused Com parison Tests. The focuse d comparison te sts using unweighte d score s re ve ale d that first author ge nde r acte d as a significant
mode rator in relation to both combine d significance le ve l‚ Z = 3.19 ‚ p <
.001 ‚ and e ffect size ‚ Z = 3.00 ‚ p < .01. Gende r differe nces were more
like ly in studie s with wome n as first authors.
Blockin g. The blocking analyse s for author gende r are summarize d in
Table III. The combine d signific ance le ve l was significant in wome nauthore d studie s. Wome n-authore d studie s were also associate d with a
mode rate combine d e ffect size whe n weighte d score s were used (d = .54) .
In contrast ‚ men-authore d studie s were associate d with a nonsignificant
combine d significance leve l and a small combine d effe ct size when we ighte d
score s were used (d = ¯.21) . The ne gative direction of the combine d e ffect
size for men-authore d studie s indicate s there was actually a tende ncy in
the se re ports for wome n to use intrusive inte rruptions more than men.
Publication Date
There was a nonsignificant corre lation associate d with intrusive interruptions and the publication date ‚ r(17) = ¯.28 ‚ n.s. The small magnitude
and ne gative dire ction of the corre lation sugge st a slight te nde ncy for
smalle r gende r diffe rence s in more re cent studie s.
G ender Com position
Focused Com parison Tests. Contrary to e xpe ctation ‚ ge nde r composition did not act as a significant moderator. The focuse d comparison te sts
were not significant when e ithe r combine d significance leve ls or combine d
effe ct size s were analyze d.
Blockin g. As se en in Table III‚ when same- and mixe d-ge nde r interactions we re analyze d se parate ly‚ combine d significanc e leve ls were all
nonsignificant. When weighte d scores were use d ‚ the re was a small combine d e ffe ct size indicating men used more intrusive inte rruptions than
wome n during same-ge nde r interactions (d = .24) . The magnitude of diffe rence during mixed-ge nde r inte ractions was negligible (d = .11) .
12
5
11
6
13
3
1
Group Size
Dyad
Group (3 or more)
Familiarity
Strangers
Familiar
Observational Setting
Lab
Naturalistic
Othe r
250
487
50
72
698
123
38
596
263
544
315
c
3.42a d
.21b
.00b
.00b
1.50a b
3.74b d
.00c
2.19a b
1.30a
1.33a b
2.61abc
1.22a
.87a
2.42a c
3.47a d
1.35
b
¯
2.55
Z
.34a
¯.03b
.00b
.00b
.08a
.45a
.00a
.11a
.12a
.11a
.13a
.12a
.08a
.16a
.18a
.11
¯ b
.12
Fisher ’s Z
Unwe ighted
.70
¯.06
.00
.00
.16
.94
.00
.23
.24
.22
.27
.25
.16
.32
.36
.22
¯
.23
Cohen’s d
b
d
d
3.59
.63
.00
.00
d
d
3.17
d
3.51
.00
d
3.67
b
1.55
1.00
d
4.74
1.36
1.17
d
3.86
5.01
1.25
¯
3.96
Z
.36
.03
.00
.00
.15
.37
.00
.19
.09
.06
.31
.12
.06
.28
.27
.11
¯
.16
Fisher ’s Z
We ighted
.73
.05
.00
.00
.31
.76
.00
.38
.19
.13
.63
.24
.11
.56
.54
.21
¯
.32
Cohen ’s d
b
Unweighted scores with different subscripts are significantly different (p < .05). (There is not an accepted comparison test for weighted scores.)
p < .05.
c
p < .01.
d
p < .001.
a
6
9
1
1
5
7
5
Gende r Composition
Same-ge nder
Mixe d-gende r
Both
Activity
Unstructure d
Instrumental
Expressive
Mixe d/Other
524
319
10
6
First Author ’s Gender
Wome n
Men
190
291
378
859
17
Overall
N
k
Mode rator V ariable
a
Combinations of Significance Le vels and Effect Sizes
Table III. Effects of Moderator Variables on Women’s and Me n’s Intrusive Interruptions
242
An derson an d Leaper
G rou p Size
Focused Comparison Tests. The focused comparison test for combined significance levels was marginally significant ‚ Z = 1.47 ‚ p < .10. As see n in Table III‚
gender differe nces in intrusive inte rruptions tended to be more likely when studies observed groups (3 or more persons) than dyads. The focused comparison
test for combined effect sizes was not significant ‚ Z = .25 ‚ n.s
Blockin g. As se en in Table II‚ the Z for combine d significance le ve ls
was significant when groups (of 3 or more persons) were analyze d and nonsignificant whe n dyads were studie d. When weighte d score s were use d for
combine d e ffect sizes‚ a small but meaningful of diffe re nce occurre d in
groups (d = .31) and a ne gligible differe nce occurred in dyads (d = .13) .
Fam iliarity
Due to the limite d range of studie s examining participants that were not
strange rs‚ it was necessary to combine friends ‚ romantic partne rs‚ and other
types of familiar relationships into a single familiar category. This allowe d for
11 studie s looking at strange rs and 6 studie s looking at participants who were
familiar with one anothe r (see Table I for further breakdown).
Focused Com parison Tests. The resulting focuse d comparison te sts using unwe ighte d scores were nonsignificant for combine d significance leve ls ‚
Z = .25 ‚ n.s.‚ as well as for combine d effe ct size s Z = .04 ‚ n.s.
Blocking. As seen in Table III‚ when studie s were blocke d into the
strange rs versus familiar leve ls‚ the gender effects appe ared especially strong
using weighte d scores when studie s looke d at inte ractions be tween strange rs.
The combine d significance levels test was significant and the combine d effe ct
size was in the small-to-mode rate range (d = .38) . In contrast ‚ when studie s
looke d at interactions be tween familiar partne rs‚ the combine d significance
levels only approache d significance and the combine d effect size was much
smalle r (d = .19) . Thus ‚ gender e ffects on intrusive interruptions may be
more like ly between strange rs than familiar persons.
Observational Setting
Focused Com pariso n Tests. Focuse d com par iso n te sts using unweighte d scores were significant for both combine d significance leve ls ‚ Z =
2.73 ‚ p < .01 ‚ and combine d e ffect sizes‚ Z = 2.91 ‚ p < .01. The like lihood
and the magnitude of ge nde r diffe re nces in the use intrusive inte ractions
was greate r in naturalistic than laboratory settings.
Meta-An alyses of Gen der Effects on In terr uption
243
Blockin g. As shown in Table III‚ when weighte d scores were used‚ the
combine d significance level was statistically significant in both naturalistic and
lab se ttings. Howe ver‚ the combine d effect size was substantially large r in studies of naturalistic settings (d = .76) than lab settings (d = .31). Thus‚ although
weighted scores indicate that gender differences tended to occur in either setting ‚ they were large r in magnitude during naturalistic settings.
Activity Structure
The analyse s of activity structure as a moderator of gende r e ffects
on intrusive interruptions were base d on 6 studie s of unstructure d activitie s
and 9 studie s of instrume ntal activitie s. Only one study conside red an e xpre ssive activity and anothe r study looke d at a mixed-task activity.
Focused Com parison Tests. The comparison of instrume ntal and unstructure d activitie s was significant for combine d significance leve l‚ Z =
2.52 ‚ p < .01 ‚ as well as for combine d effe ct size ‚ Z = 3.18 ‚ p < .001. As
pre dicted ‚ ge nde r diffe re nces in intrusive inte rruptions were more like ly
and of greate r magnitude in unstructure d activitie s.
Blockin g. As se en in Table III‚ unstructure d activitie s — but not instrume nta l activitie s — we re associat e d with a sign ifican t com bine d
significance le vel. Similarly ‚ substantial e ffect sizes occurred when unstructured activitie s were analyze d (d = .73) but not when instrume ntal activitie s
were studie d (d = .05) .
Length of Observation
There was a nonsignificant corre lation be tween weighte d e ffect sizes
and length of obse rvation ‚ r(17) = .24 ‚ n.s. The positive dire ction of the
corre lation sugge sts a slight tende ncy for gende r diffe rence s to be large r
with longe r observation time s.
DISCUSSION
Meta-analyses of 43 published studie s were carried out to addre ss the
controversial issue of whether women or men are more like ly to interrupt their
conve rsational partne rs. Although some investigations have replicated Zimmerman and West’s (1975) often cited finding that men tend to interrupt more
often than women‚ there have also been contradictory results indicating either
an absence of gender difference or even that women interrupted more than
men (see Table I). Furthermore ‚ two recent narrative reviews (Aries‚ 1996;
James & Clarke ‚ 1993) concluded that the re is no consistent evidence that men
do inde ed interrupt more than women.
244
An derson an d Leaper
When all 43 studie s (yie lding 53 hypothe sis tests) comparing women ’s
and men ’s use of interruption were combine d ‚ the pre se nt meta-analysis
both contradicte d and confirme d the conclusion re ache d in Arie s’ (1996)
and Jame s and Clarke ’s (1993) narrative revie ws. First ‚ a significant combine d significance le ve l indicate d that men were more like ly than women
to initiate inte rruptions. However‚ the corre sponding combine d effe ct size
was negligible (weighte d d = .15) ‚ indicating that the magnitude of gende r
4
differe nce was in substan tial (Cohen ‚ 1977) .
Looking beyond the ove rall analysis of studie s‚ the meta-analysis revealed some factors that may mode rate the like lihood and magnitude of
ge nde r diffe rence s in inte rruptions. One of the se factors was the operational
definition that is use d to measure inte rruption. As othe r write rs (Arie s‚
1996; James & Clarke ‚ 1993; Tanne n ‚ 1994) have note d‚ there are multiple
ways in which interruptions have bee n de fine d. When inte rpre ting interruption as a form of domine ering behavior ‚ the type we re fe r to as intrusive
inte rruptions may be most re le vant. Intrusive inte rruptions function to
usurp the spe aker’s turn at talk with the intent of demonstrating dominanc e . In contr ast ‚ inte rruption s that in clude bac k-chan ne l liste ning
response s or affiliative ove rlaps may de monstrate e nthusiasm ‚ agre e ment ‚
or rapport. There fore ‚ any analysis of conve rsational interruptions should
take into account the multiple me anings of interruptions. Both Arie s (1996)
and Jame s and Clarke (1993) pointe d out the inconsiste ncy in researchers’
definitions of interruptions. Inde e d‚ some studie s we surve ye d did not provide a specific de finition of inte rruption. Thus‚ any te nde ncy for gende r
differe nces in conve rsational inte rruptions may be more like ly to be dete cted when the more narrowly de fine d intrusive inte rruption cate gory is
use d. When interruptions in this category were analyze d separate ly‚ a small
but substantial effe ct size emerged (we ighte d d = .33) ‚ indicating that men
inte rrupte d more than did wome n.
Subse quent analyse s using spe cifically intrusive interruptions re ve aled
5
othe r factors that may moderate gende r e ffects on inte rruption. The moderator variable s that were inve stigate d include d publication characte ristics ‚
aspe cts of the participants ‚ length of observation ‚ and aspe cts of the interactive setting.
Whe n discussing the analyses of effe ct sizes in the text‚ the we ighted effect size s will be cited
because these scores adjusted for the sample size of e ach study.
5
The re were no major findings that occurre d in the analyses of overall interruptions (i.e.‚
collapsing across all ope rational de finitions) that did not occur in the analyses of intrusive
interruptions. The re fore ‚ only the results associated with the analyses of intrusive
interruptions are subse quently discusse d.
4
Meta-An alyses of Gen der Effects on In terr uption
245
The year of pu blication and the first au thor’s gender were two publication characte ristics that we hypothe size d might moderate ge nde r e ffects
on the use of inte rruptions. Year of study did not prove to be a statistically
significant mode rator. Howeve r‚ consist with our hypothe sis ‚ a small negative corre lation sugge ste d a slight te nde ncy for ge nde r diffe re nce s in
intrusive inte rruptions to de crease ove r time. It might be that both researche rs and research participants have be come le ss ge nde r-stereotype d
ove r the three de cade period of the studie s that were include d ‚ although
this inte rpretation warrants furthe r inve stigation.
The first author ’s gender was a significant moderator. Significant gender
effects and large r effect sizes were more like ly when the first author was a
woman. Specifically‚ women authors were more like ly than men authors to report that men interrupted more than women. When effect sizes were analyzed‚
there was even a tendency for men authors to report the opposite finding; that
is‚ men authors tended to report women interrupting more than men. In their
narrative review of the interruptions literature ‚ James and Clarke (1993) intimated that author gender might influe nce whether one gender is more likely
to interrupt than the other‚ but the y did not speculate on any particular pattern.
Our finding that author gender acted as a significant moderator is consiste nt
with meta-analyse s on other topics (e.g.‚ Eagly & Carli‚ 1981; Leaper et al.‚
1998). The difference between women and men authors potentially reflects
some form of researcher bias: Some women researchers may be biase d toward
identifying men as more dominant than women; also‚ some men researchers
may be biased against identifying men as more dominant than women.
Turning to specific aspects of the research procedures as possible moderators‚ one factor that we investigated was the length of the observation. Presumably‚
detecting stylistic differences in people ’s behavior is more apt to occur when longer
observation periods are used. Accordingly‚ we expected effect sizes would be positively correlated with observation length. There was a nonsignificant positive
correlation between interaction time and gender differences in intrusive interactions suggesting a slight tendency for gender differences to increase as the length
of interaction increased. The strength of the correlation was likely restricted by
the narrow range of observation lengths in the studies sampled. Most studies were
limited to a relatively short interaction time (around 10-15 minutes).
There were se ve ral aspe cts pertaining to the interactive se tting that
were examine d as pote ntial mode rators. Contrary to expe ctations ‚ the gender com position of the group was not a significant moderator of intrusive
inte rruptions. In their narrative re views of conve rsational inte rruptions ‚
James and Clarke (1993) found a te nde ncy for men to interrupt more in
mixe d-ge nde r than same -gende r inte ractions. In contrast ‚ Arie s (1996) infe rre d no patte rn of ge nde r diffe rence relate d to ge nde r composition. Our
results are consiste nt with Aries’ (1996) conclusion.
246
An derson an d Leaper
G roup size was anothe r possible mode rating factor that was e xplore d.
Consiste nt with our expe ctation ‚ significant ge nde r diffe re nces in intrusive
inte rruptions occurre d in groups of thre e or more but not in dyads. When
weighte d effe ct sizes were analyze d ‚ the magnitude of diffe re nce was moderate in groups (d = .63) but was negligible in dyads (d = .13) . To the
exte nt that intrusive inte rruption is a manife station of dominance ‚ large r
and more public group settings may be especially like ly to e licit this behavior in men. During childhood and adole scence ‚ boys have bee n found
to be more like ly than girls to e mphasize group dominance in the ir pe er
relationships. In contrast ‚ girls are more like ly to emphasize close ne ss in
one -on-one interactions (Le ape r‚ 1994). Thus‚ inte racting in dyads may be
a way for men to mitigate the ir domine e ring be havior.
Anothe r aspect of the social relationship that may affect whether or
not gender diffe rences in inte rruption are found is the fam iliarity between
interactants. O ne of the limitations of most conve rsation research is that it
is based on observations between strange rs (usually re cruited through introductory unive rsity courses). Relative ly few studie s have examine d interactions betwee n friends or romantic partne rs (Leape r & Ande rson‚ 1997). In
our analyse s of intrusive interruptions ‚ 6 of the identifie d studie s looke d at
participants who knew e ach othe r in one way or anothe r‚ the remaining 11
studie s examine d interactions be tween strange rs. We hypothe sized that unacquainte d people would be more like ly than acquainte d people to rely on
ge nde r-ste reotype d e xpe ctations to guide the ir be havior. In contrast ‚ acquainte d persons such as close frie nds and intimate s have been found more
like ly to rely on individual characte ristics (Drass ‚ 1986; Wood & Karten ‚
1986). Howeve r‚ the familiarity betwee n the interactants did not prove to
be a significant moderator variable in our analyse s. Pe rhaps the abse nce of
any difference between strange rs and familiar interactants is related to the
short observation periods in most studie s. As previously note d‚ stylistic differences related to pe ople ’s prefere nces‚ pe rsonalitie s‚ or personal relationships may be more apt to emerge over longe r periods of time.
The observation setting was yet anothe r aspect of the interactive context
we conside red. Interactions observed in naturalistic settings were contraste d
with those occurring in a research laboratory or office. As hypothe sized‚ gender differences in intrusive interruptions were greater in naturalistic than lab
settings. The combine d effect sizes associate d with naturalistic settings were
the large st seen in the study (weighte d d = .76). To the extent that intrusive
interruptions are generally conside red rude conve rsational practice ‚ perhaps
people feel more inhibite d inte rrupting in laboratory than naturalistic se ttings.
However‚ the issue deserves further exploration. Only three of the 17 studie s
examining intrusive interruptions were in naturalistic settings. Therefore ‚ the
finding should be conside red with caution.
Meta-An alyses of Gen der Effects on In terr uption
247
Finally‚ the activity structure was anothe r obse rve d moderator of gender e ffects on intrusive inte rruptions. Spe cifically‚ significant gende r e ffects
with large r effe ct sizes were more like ly when participants were observed
in unstructure d activitie s than during instrume ntal tasks. A moderate-tolarge combine d e ffe cts size was associate d with unstructure d activitie s
(weighte d d = .73) . In contrast ‚ there was virtually no diffe rence associate d
with instrume ntal activitie s (weighte d d = .05) . These findings contradict
our expe ctations as well as Jame s and Clarke ’s (1993) speculation that men
would make more inte rruptions during instrume ntal activitie s since men
are suppose dly more “ e xpe rt” in those tasks. Inste ad ‚ ope n-e nde d and unstructure d situations se emed to be whe re gende r diffe re nces occurred ‚ with
men inte rrupting more than wome n. The obse rve d finding is actually consiste nt with a re cent meta-analysis of gende r effe cts on pare nts ’ spe ech to
the ir childre n (Le ape r e t al.‚ 1998). Diffe rence s in mothe rs’ and fathe rs’
spe ech as well as differe nces in spee ch dire cted to daughte rs ve rsus sons
were more like ly during unstructure d than structure d activitie s. The e ffect
was interpreted in re lation to e cological-conte xtual models of ge nde r. According to this vie w‚ many ge nde r e ffects on social behavior are mediate d
through the type s of activitie s that are se lected. By controlling for the activity‚ one constrains the type s of behaviors that may follow. Thus‚ whether
or not men prefer instrume ntal activitie s more than wome n ‚ both women
and men may act similarly whe n participating in instrume ntal tasks.
Conclu sion
The findings from the se meta-analyse s are consiste nt with a conte xtual-inte ractive mode l of gende r (e .g.‚ Be all ‚ 1993; Deaux & Major ‚ 1987;
Leape r e t al.‚ 1998) . According to this pe rspective ‚ gende r-re late d variations in be havior are influe nce d more by situation al factors than by
inhe rent individual diffe re nces betwee n wome n and men. Rele vant situational factors include characte ristics about the inte ractions such as the
numbe r of pe rsons‚ their re spe ctive gende rs‚ and their relationship to one
anothe r. Also ‚ the activity structure is anothe r pote ntially important situational influe nce . Of these specific factors‚ we found that group size was
a significant moderator of ge nde r effe cts on interruption. Studie s also indicate that gende r-re late d variations in be havior are reduced or disappe ar
when the type of activity is take n into account (se e Leape r et al. ‚ 1998) .
If girls and women are apt to se le ct expre ssive activitie s‚ they may act in
a more affiliative manne r. Conve rsely‚ if boys and men are more like ly to
sele ct task-orie nte d activitie s‚ they may act in a more instrume ntal way.
We found that ge nde r e ffects were large r when unstructure d activitie s were
248
An derson an d Leaper
obse rve d. It may be that whe n participants were assigne d specific tasks ‚
the ir behavior adapte d to the de mand characte ristics of the situation and
the re by reduce d the like lihood of gende r diffe rence s in interruption. To
the extent that ge nde r variations in social be havior can be found to depend
on situation al factors ‚ we se e more e vide nce for conte xtual-inte ractive
mode l of ge nde r as oppose d to the e sse ntialist mode l that e mphasize s the
existe nce of inhe re nt ‚ immutable differe nces be tween wome n and men.
Lim itations an d Direction s for Future Research
Despite the contributions of the pre se nt analysis ‚ the re are limitations worth highlighting . First ‚ measure s of inte rruption in the re se arch
lite rature are ofte n vague ly de fine d. In the ir narrative re vie ws both Arie s
(1996) and Jame s and Clarke (1993) e xpre sse d frustration at the lack of
a consiste nt de finition of an inte rruption across studie s. As our analyse s
sugge st‚ the type of in terruption is not a trivial matte r in the e xam ination
of possible ge nde r diffe re nce s. Some type s of ove rlapping spe e ch se e m
to de monstrate conve rsational dominance (the “ intrusive ” inte rruption) ‚
while othe r forms indicate affiliative e ngage ment (the “ back channe l ” liste ning re sponse ). The se two type s of ove rlap paralle l traditional ge nde rrole and status diffe re nce s in communication style ( se e e .g. ‚ Tanne n ‚
1983 ‚ 1994; We st & Z immerman ‚ 1983) . In an e ffort to be gin conside ring
how the type of inte rruption (or ove rlapping spe e ch) might mode rate the
like lihood or magnitude of ge nde r diffe re nce s‚ we organize d studie s into
thre e cate gorie s of inte rruptions be ginning with the most ge ne ral de finition ‚ which like ly include d affiliative ove rlaps and minim al liste ning re sponse s. In the most spe cific cate gory‚ we include d studie s that use d the
re lative ly narrow form of intrusive inte rruptions. Howe ve r‚ we were unable to go be yond the se thre e some what unre fine d cate gorie s of ope ration al de finit ion. For ins tan ce ‚ fe w stud ie s in clud e d in the pre se nt
analyse s analyze d affiliative ove rlaps as a se parate cate gory of inte rruptions. With e nough available studie s ‚ we would have te ste d the hypothe sis
that wome n use affiliative ove rlaps more than did me n.
Another limitation was our inability to conside r possible sociocultural
moderators of gender effects on the use of interruption. Writers (e.g.‚ Crawford‚ 1995) have criticize d researchers for focusing on mostly on middle -class‚
Euro-American sample s. Give n the predominantly homogene ous nature of the
sample s reflected in the studie s used in the meta-analysis‚ we were unable to
consider the possible influence s of factors such as cultural background ‚ educational level‚ or socioe conomic status. Also‚ individual psychological factors
such as gende r self-conce pt‚ gender-role ideology‚ or personality are worth
Meta-An alyses of Gen der Effects on In terr uption
249
inve stigating. For example ‚ two studies (Roger & Schumache r‚ 1983; Roger
& Nesshoeve r‚ 1987) found that successful interruptions were associate d with
personalitie s high in dominance more than those with personalities low in
dominance. Finally‚ relationship qualities were barely addre ssed due to the
overwhelming numbe r of studie s based on interactions between strangers. Besides the type of relationship (e.g.‚ friendship ‚ dating ‚ married‚ etc.) which we
did examine ‚ relationship qualitie s such as relative dominance or power might
moderate the use of intrusive interruptions and other power-assertive speech
forms. For instance ‚ Kollock‚ Blumstein & Schwartz (1985) studie d homose xual and heterosexual couple s’ decision making and found that those partne rs
that had more power over day-to-day decision making made more interruptions than those partne rs more equal in power. Unfortunate ly‚ there were not
enough studie s that include d measures of sociocultural factors‚ individual-psychological factors‚ or relationship qualitie s to include in our me ta-analysis. We
encourage researchers to explore these factors in future studie s on gender and
communication style.
REFERENCES6
Aries ‚ E. (1996). Men and wom en in interaction: Reconsidering the difference. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Bakeman ‚ R.‚ & Que ra ‚ V . (1995) . Analyzing interaction: Sequential analysis with SDIS and
G SEQ. New York: Cambridge University.
B ake m an ‚ R. ‚ & G ottman ‚ J. M. ( 1986) . Observing interaction . Cambridge : Cambridge
University Press.
Beall ‚ A. E. (1993) . A social constructionist view of ge nder. In A. E. Beall & R. J. Sternberg
(Eds.) ‚ The psychology of gender. New York: Guilford Pre ss.
Beattie ‚ G. (1977). The dynamics of interruption and the filled pause. British Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology‚ 16 ‚ 283-284.
*Beattie ‚ G. W. (1981) . Interruption in conversational interaction and its re lation to the sex
and status of the interactants. Linguistics ‚ 19 ‚ 5-35.
*Bilous‚ F. R.‚ & Krauss ‚ R. M. (1988). Dominance and accommodation in the conversation al
behaviors of same - and mixe d-gende r dyads. Language and Com munication ‚ 8 ‚ 183-194.
*Bohn ‚ E.‚ & Stutman ‚ R. (1983) . Se x role differences in the relational control dime nsion of
dyadic interaction. Wom en ’s Studies in Com munication ‚ 6‚ 965-104.
*Brooks ‚ V . R. (1982) . Sex differences in student dominance behavior in female and male
professors ’ classrooms. Sex Roles‚ 8 ‚ 683-690.
Camp be ll ‚ K. E .‚ Kle im ‚ D. M.‚ & O lson ‚ K. R. ( 1992) . Conve rsational activity an d
interruptions among men and women. The Journal of Social Psychology‚ 132 ‚ 419-421.
*Carli ‚ L. L. (1990) . Gender ‚ language ‚ and influence. Journal of Personality an d Social
Psychology‚ 59 ‚ 941-951.
*Case ‚ S. S. (1988) . Cultural differences ‚ not de ficiencies: An analysis of managerial women ’s
language. In S. Rose & L. Larwood (Eds.) ‚ Wom en ’s careers: Pathways and pitfalls. New
York: Prae ger.
6
Asterisked references are studies used in meta-analyse s.
250
An derson an d Leaper
Chambliss‚ C. A.‚ & Fe eny‚ N. (1992). Effect of se x of subject‚ sex of interrupter‚ and topic
of conversat ion on the perce ptions of interruptions. Perceptual an d Motor Skills‚ 75 ‚
1235-1241.
Cohen‚ J. (1977) . Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (re v. ed.). Ne w York:
Academic Press.
*C raig ‚ D. ‚ & Pitts‚ M. K. (1990) . The dyn amics of dominance in tutorial discussion.
Linguistics ‚ 28 ‚ 125-138.
Crawford‚ M. (1995). Talking difference: On gender and language. London: Sage.
*Dabbs ‚ J. M.‚ Jr. ‚ & Ruback‚ R. B. (1984) . V ocal patterns in male and fe male groups.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin ‚ 10 ‚ 518-525.
*De B oe r ‚ M. (1987) . Se x difference s in language : O bse rvations of dyadic conversations
betwee n me mbers of the same se x. In D. Brouwe r & D. de Haan (Eds.) ‚ Wom en ’s
language ‚ socialization and self-image. Providence ‚ RI: Foris.
De aux‚ K. ‚ & Major ‚ B . ( 1987) . Putting ge nde r into conte xt: An interactive mode l of
gende r-relate d be havior. Psychological Review ‚ 94 ‚ 369-389.
*Dindia ‚ K. (1987) . The effects of se x of subject and se x of partne r on interruptions. Hum an
Com m unication Research ‚ 13 ‚ 345-371.
Drass ‚ K. A. (1986) . The effe ct of ge nder identity on conve rsation. Social Psychology Quarterly‚
49 ‚ 294-301.
Eagly‚ A. H.‚ & Carli‚ L. L. (1981) . Se x of rese arche rs and sex-typed communications as
determinants of sex differe nce s in influenceability: A meta-analysis of social influence
studies. Psychological Bulletin ‚ 90 ‚ 1-20.
*Eakins ‚ B.‚ & Eakins‚ R. G. (1976). V erbal turn-taking and e xchanges in faculty dialogue .
In B. L. Dubois & I. M. Crouch (Eds.) ‚ The sociology of the languages of Am erican wom en.
San Antonio‚ TX: Trinity University.
*Fallon ‚ J.‚ & Guo ‚ D. (1994) . The relationship betwe en topic familiarity and conversational
dominance. Psychology‚ a Journal of Hum an Behavior ‚ 31 ‚ 53-57.
Fe rguson ‚ N. (1977). Simultaneous speech ‚ interruptions and dominance. British Journal of
Clinical Psychology‚ 16 ‚ 295-302.
*Frances ‚ S. J. (1979) . Se x differences in nonverbal be havior. Sex Roles‚ 5‚ 519-535.
Goldbe rg ‚ J. A. (1990). Interrupting the discourse on interruptions: An analysis in terms of
re lationally neutral ‚ power- and rapport-oriented acts. Journal of Pragm atics ‚ 14 ‚ 883-903.
Hall ‚ J. A. (1978) . Ge nde r e ffects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological Bulletin ‚ 85 ‚
845-857.
Hawkins ‚ K. (1991) . Some conse quences of deep interruption in task-oriented communication.
Journal of Language & Social Psychology‚ 10 ‚ 185-203.
Hyde ‚ J. S.‚ Fe nne ma ‚ E .‚ & Lamon ‚ S. J. ( 1990) . Ge nde r differe nce s in mathe matics
performance : A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin ‚ 107 ‚ 139-155.
Hyde ‚ J. S.‚ & Linn‚ M. C. (1988) . Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin ‚ 104 ‚ 53-69.
James ‚ D.‚ & Clarke ‚ S. (1992) . Interruptions ‚ gender ‚ and power: A critical review of the
literature . In K. Hall ‚ M. Bucholtz‚ & B. Moonwoman (Eds.) ‚ Locating power: Proceedings
of the Second Berkeley Wom en and Language Conference. Berke ley‚ CA: Berke ley Wome n
and Language Group.
James ‚ D.‚ & Clarke ‚ S. (19930. Women ‚ me n‚ and interruptions: A critical re view. In D.
Tannen (Ed.) ‚ G ender and conversational interaction. New York: Oxford University Pre ss.
*Johnson ‚ C. (1994) . Ge nde r ‚ legitimate authority‚ and leader-subordinate conve rsations.
American Sociological Review ‚ 59 ‚ 122-135.
*Jones ‚ E. S.‚ & Gallois‚ C.‚ Callan‚ V . J.‚ & Barker ‚ M. (1995) . Language and power in an
academic context: The effects of status‚ ethnicity‚ and se x. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology‚ 14 ‚ 434-461.
*Kennedy ‚ C. W.‚ & Camden ‚ C. (1983) . A new look at interruptions. Western Journal of
Speech Com munication ‚ 47 ‚ 45-58.
*Ko llock ‚ P . ‚ B lum ste in ‚ P. ‚ & Sch wart z ‚ P . ( 19 85) . Se x an d powe r in inte racti on:
Conve rsational privileges and duties. American Sociological Review ‚ 50 ‚ 34-46.
Meta-An alyses of Gen der Effects on In terr uption
251
*LaFrance ‚ M.‚ & Carmen ‚ B. (1980) . The nonverbal display of psychological androgyny.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology‚ 38 ‚ 36-49.
Leaper ‚ C. (1994) . Exploring the conse quences of gender segre gation on social relationships.
In C. Le ap e r ( E d.) ‚ Ch ildhoo d gen der segregation : Cau ses and consequ ences ( Ne w
Directions for child Deve lopment‚ No. 65). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Le ape r ‚ C.‚ & Ande rson ‚ K. J. (1997) . Ge nde r de ve lopme nt and he te rose xual romantic
re lationships during adolescence . In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & S. Shulman & W. A.
Collins (Issue Eds.) ‚ Rom antic relationships in adolescenc e: Developm ental perspectives
(New Directions for Child Developm ent‚ No. 78) . San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Leaper ‚ C.‚ Anderson ‚ K. J.‚ & Sanders‚ P. (1998) . Mode rators of gender e ffects on parents ’
talk to their children: A meta-analysis. Developm ental Psychology‚ 34 ‚ 3-27.
*Le e t-Pellegrini ‚ H. M. ( 1980) . Conve rsational dominance as a function of ge nde r and
e xp e rtise . In H . Gi les ‚ W . P. Robinson ‚ & P . M. Smith ( E ds.) ‚ Language: Social
psychological perspectives. Ne w York: Pergamon Press.
*Leffle r‚ A.‚ Gillespie ‚ D.‚ & Conaty‚ J. C. (1982) . The effects of status differentiation on
nonverbal behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly‚ 45 ‚ 153-161.
*Makri-Tsilipakou‚ M. (1994) . Interruption revisited: Affiliative vs. disaffiliative intervention.
Journal of Pragm atics‚ 21 ‚ 401-426.
*Marche ‚ T. A.‚ & Pe terson‚ C. (1993) . The deve lopment and sex-relate d use of interruption
behavior. Hum an Com munication Research ‚ 19 ‚ 388-408.
*Margolin ‚ G.‚ & Wampold ‚ B. E . (1981) . Se que ntial analysis of conflict and accord in
distressed and nondistressed marital partners. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology‚
49 ‚ 554-567.
*Martin ‚ J. N. ‚ & Craig‚ R. T. (1983) . Selecte d linguistic sex differe nce s during initial social
interactions of same-se x and mixe d-sex student dyads. The Western Journal of Speech
Com m unication ‚ 47 ‚ 16-28.
*McLachlan ‚ A. (1991) . The effects of agre ement ‚ disagreeme nt‚ ge nder and familiarity on
patte rns of dyadic interaction. Journal of Language & Social Psychology‚ 10 ‚ 199-213.
McLaughlin ‚ M. L. (1984) . Conversation: How talk is organized. Beve rly Hills‚ CA: Sage .
*McMillan ‚ J. R.‚ Clifton‚ A. K.‚ McGrath ‚ D.‚ & Gale ‚ W. S. (1977) . Women ’s language:
Uncertainty ‚ or interpersonal sensitivity and emotionality? Sex Roles ‚ 3 ‚ 545-559.
Mott‚ H.‚ & Petrie ‚ H. (1995) . Workplace interactions: Women ’s linguistic behavior. Journal
of Language and Social Psychology‚ 14 ‚ 324-336.
Mullen‚ B. (1989). Advanced BASIC meta-analysis. Hillsdale ‚ NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Murata ‚ K. (1994) . Intrusive or co-operative? A cross-cultural study of interruption. Journal
of Pragm atics ‚ 21 ‚ 385-400.
Murray‚ S. O.‚ & Covelli‚ L. H. (1988) . Wome n and men spe aking at the same time. Journal
of Pragm atics ‚ 12 ‚ 103-111.
*Natale ‚ M.‚ Entin‚ E.‚ & Jaffe ‚ J. (1979) . Vocal interruptions in dyadic communication as a
function of spee ch and social anxie ty. Journ al of Personality & Social Psychology‚ 37 ‚
865-878.
*Neme th ‚ C.‚ Endicott‚ J.‚ & Wachtler ‚ J. (1976) . From the ‘50s to the ‘70s: Women in jury
deliberations. Sociom etry‚ 39 ‚ 293-304.
*Ng ‚ S. H. ‚ Brook‚ M.‚ & Dunne ‚ M. (1995) . Interruption and influence in discussion groups.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology‚ 14 ‚ 369-381.
*Nohara ‚ M. (1992) . Sex differe nce s in interruption. An experimen tal reevaluation. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research ‚ 21 ‚ 127-146.
*Redeker ‚ G.‚ & Mae s‚ A. (1996) . Gende r differences in interruptions. In D. I. Slobin‚ J.
Gerhardt ‚ A. Kyratzis ‚ & J. Guo (Eds.) ‚ Social interaction ‚ social context‚ and language:
Essays in honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp. Mahwah ‚ NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rim ‚ Y. (1977) . Personality variable s and interruptions in small discussion. European Journal
of Social Psychology‚ 7 ‚ 247-251.
Robinson‚ L. F.‚ & Re is‚ H. T. (1989) . The effects on interruption‚ gender and status on
interpersonal perce ptions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior ‚ 13 ‚ 141-153.
*Roger ‚ D.‚ Nesshoe ver ‚ W. (1987) . Individual differe nce s in dyadic conversational strategies:
A further study. British Journal of Social Psychology‚ 26 ‚ 247-255.
252
An derson an d Leaper
*Ro ge r ‚ D. B .‚ & Sch umache r ‚ A. ( 1983) . E ffects of individual diffe re nce s on dyadic
conve rsational strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology‚ 45 ‚ 700-705.
*Rogers ‚ W. T.‚ & Jones ‚ S. E. (1980). Effects of dominance tendencies on floor holding and
interruption behavior in dyadic interaction. Hum an Com munication Research ‚ 1 ‚ 113-122.
Sacks‚ H. ‚ Schegloff ‚ E. A.‚ & Je fferson‚ G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization
of turn-taking for conversation. Language ‚ 50 ‚ 696-735.
*Shaw‚ M. E. ‚ & Sadle r‚ O. W. (1965). Interaction patterns in heterose xual dyads varying in
degree of intimacy. Journal of Social Psychology‚ 66 ‚ 345-351.
*Simkins-Bullock‚ J. ‚ & Wildman ‚ B. G. (1991) . An inve stigation into the re lationships betwee n
gende r and language. Sex Roles ‚ 24 ‚ 149-160.
*Smeltzer ‚ L. R.‚ & Watson ‚ K. W. (1986) . Gender differe nce s in verbal communication during
negotiations. Com munication Research Reports ‚ 3 ‚ 74-79.
*Smith ‚ H. W. (1977) . Small group interaction at various ages: Simultaneous talking and
interruptions of others. Sm all G roup Behavior ‚ 8 ‚ 65-74.
Smith-Lovin ‚ L.‚ & Brody‚ C. (1989). Interruptions in group discussions: The effe cts of ge nder
and group composition. American Sociological Review ‚ 54 ‚ 424-435.
*Street ‚ R. L.‚ Jr.‚ & Murphy‚ T. L. (1987) . Interpersonal orientation and speech behavior.
Com m unication Monographs ‚ 54 ‚ 42-62.
Tanne n‚ D. (1983) . When is an ove rlap not an interruption? O ne component of conversational
style. In R. J. DePie tro‚ W. Frawley‚ & A. Wedel (Eds.) ‚ The first Delaware Sym posium
on Language Studies. Newark ‚ DE: University of Delaware Press.
Tanne n‚ D. (1994) . Interpre ting interruption in conversation. In D. Tannen (Ed.) ‚ G ender and
discourse. New York: Oxford.
Thimm ‚ C.‚ Rademache r‚ U.‚ & Kruse ‚ L. (1995) . “Power-re lated talk”: Control in verbal
interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology‚ 14 ‚ 382-407.
Thomas ‚ A. P.‚ Roge r ‚ D. ‚ & B ull‚ P. ( 1983) . A se que ntial analysis of informal dyadic
conve rsation using Markov chains. British Journal of Social Psychology‚ 22 ‚ 177-188.
*Trimboli ‚ C.‚ & Walke r ‚ M. B. (1984) . Switching pauses in coope rative and competitive
conve rsations. Journal of Experim ental Social Psychology‚ 20 ‚ 297-311.
*W e lkowitz ‚ J. ‚ Bon d ‚ R. N. ‚ & Fe ldstein ‚ S. ( 1984) . Conve rsational time patte rns of
Japane se -Ame rican adults and children in same and mixed-ge nder dyads. Journal of
Language and Social Psychology‚ 3‚ 127-138.
*West ‚ C.‚ & Z imme rman ‚ D. (1983) . Small insults: A study of interruptions in cross-sec
conve rsations betwee n unacquainted person. In B. Thorne ‚ C. Kramarae ‚ & N. He nley
(Eds.) ‚ Language ‚ gender and society. Rowley‚ MA: Newbury House .
Willis‚ F. N.‚ & Williams ‚ S. J. (1976) . Simultane ous talking in conve rsation and se x of
speakers. Perceptual and Motor Skills‚ 43 ‚ 1067-1070.
Wood ‚ W. ‚ & Karten ‚ S. J. (1986). Se x differe nce s in interaction style as a product of perce ived
sex differences in competence. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology‚ 50 ‚ 341-347.
Woods‚ N. (1989) . Talking shop: Sex and status as determinants of floor apportionment in a
work se tting. In J. Coates & D. Came ron (Eds.) ‚ Wom en in their speech com munities.
New York: Longman.
Zimmerman ‚ D. H.‚ & West ‚ C. (1975) . Sex roles‚ interruptions and silences in conversation.
In B. Thorne & N. Henle y (Eds.) ‚ Language and sex: Difference and dom inance. Rowley‚
MA: Ne wbury House.