GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE NARRATIVE PRODUCTIONS OF AFRICAN AMERICAN
ADULTS
ANGELA BRADFORD WAINWRIGHT, PhD, CCC-SLP
THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BACKGROUND
RESULTS
Gender differences are said to exist in narrative production. The narratives
of females have been described as expressive, lengthier, richer in content
descriptions and detail, and concerned with establishing intimacy. Conversely,
the narratives of males are instrumental, task oriented, less descriptive, and
concerned with gathering and imparting information (Glass, 1992; Michaud &
Warner, 1997; Tannen, 1990). Differences in narrative production may be due,
in part, to gender differences in socialization. Females are socialized to be
more expressive, nurturing, and emotional. Males are socialized into roles that
emphasize power and independence. (Broverman, Vogel, Broverman,
Clarkson, & Rosenkrantz, 1972).
There is a paucity of research into adult gender differences in discourse and
even less in African American narrative production. The African American
narrative tradition is considered to be informal, and consequently, in
opposition to the mainstream tradition required for clinical, research,
academia, and other formal venues leaving African American adults
vulnerable to a diagnosis of pathology. Therefore, the purpose of this study is
to describe gender differences in the narrative productions of normally aging
African American adults through a systematic analysis of macrostructure.
Quantity of Information
DISCUSSION
TOTAL WORDS
DURATION OF NARRATIVES
Significant main effect for gender [F(4,64) = 2.67, p < .040, ηp2 = .143]
Significant main effect for education [F (4,64) = 2.92, p < .028, η p2 = .154]
3.50
F (1,67) = 4.56, p < .036, η p
2
450.00
= .064
2
F (1,67) = 6.83, p < .011, η p = .092
400.00
3.00
350.00
2.50
300.00
2.00
250.00
200.00
1.50
150.00
1.00
100.00
0.50
50.00
0.00
0.00
Story-recall
Personal narrative
Female
2.67
2.88
Female
308.50
Male
2.28
2.15
Male
264.00
Story-recall
Pers onal narrative
401.60
266.90
TOTAL WORDS PER PROPOSITION
TOTAL PROPOSITIONS
50.00
9.40
F (1,67) = 6.78, p < .011, η p
2
= .092
F (1,67) = 3.28, p < .075, η p
45.00
9.20
= .047
35.00
8.80
30.00
8.60
25.00
8.40
20.00
8.20
15.00
8.00
10.00
7.80
5.00
7.60
0.00
Story-recall
Personal narrative
Story-recall
Personal narrative
Female
9.31
9.11
Female
32.77
45.19
Male
8.24
8.50
Male
31.18
32.95
Distribution of Information
RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS
PERSONAL NARRATIVES
STORY-RETELLING
The present study was designed to investigate whether men and women
differ in the production of complex stories and personal narratives. These
differences were predicted to be manifested in the following ways:
Women will produce longer and more complex narratives than men.
Women will produce more incidences of skewed distribution of
information within the constituent components of the narrative, such that
one element is emphasized over another.
Men will produce more incidences of referential ambiguities and indirect
references than women.
2
40.00
9.00
12.00
p < .016
Significant main effect of gender [F (6,65) = 2.89, p < .015, ηp2 = .211]
Significant main effect of education [F (6,65) = 2.42, p < .036, ηp2 = .182]
Significant interaction between gender and narrative type [F(5,65) = 2.76, p < .019, ηp2 = .203]
14.00
Education
p < .003
12.00
10.00
10.00
Education
p < .042
8.00
p < .050
Gender p < .001
8.00
Education
p < .0.14
6.00
6.00
p < .000
4.00
Education
p < .006
4.00
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Gender p < .001
Education p < .012
2.00
Education
p < .006
Participants
Seventy-six African American adults from the Washington DC Metropolitan
area participated in the study: 40 females (46 and 86 years) and 36 males (45 to
87 years). Among the participants 34 were high-school graduates, 19 attended
college but were awarded no degrees, and 23 were college graduates.
Procedures
Participants were required to produce two types of narratives: (1) retelling of
a complex story, and (2) a personal experience. Participants were allowed
sufficient time to think of a story and to mentally organize it. The length of the
narrative and the time allowed to produce it was not restricted. Narratives were
transcribed orthographically and then parsed into propositional units following
the principles outlined by Hunt (1964). Narrative superstructure was segmented
into six constituent units and systematically tabulated according to gender.
Research Design
A mixed factorial 2 x 2 (Gender x Narrative Type) quasi-experimental
design was used to assess gender differences. Three analysis of covariance with
repeated measures (ANCOVAs) were used to examine main effects and
interactions. Each participant was measured on the dependent variables and on
theby covariate variable (education). Since there was variability in educational
printed
attainment, the ANCOVA adjusted the means to what they would have been if
www.postersession.com
the two groups were equal on that covariate.
2.00
0.00
0.00
Orientation
Initiating Event
Peak episode
Final Suspense
Evaluation
Coda
Orientation
Initiating Event
Peak episode
Final Suspense
Evaluation
Female
3.67
11.15
8.97
6.42
1.54
1.12
Female
4.46
11.82
9.58
8.54
7.03
3.47
Male
3.00
10.15
7.07
7.86
0.43
1.15
Male
4.39
8.13
8.61
6.25
2.20
1.95
Hypothesis 1
Women spent significantly more time producing their narratives (p < .036). Moreover,
women produced significantly more words per narrative and used more words to express a
single thought (p < .011). However, preliminary data revealed no significant difference in
syntactic complexity (p < .334).
Participants with college degrees (predominantly women) expressed themselves more
succinctly and took more time to organize and express their thoughts in complex storyretelling (p < .024). Conversely, participants with high school diplomas (predominantly
men) produced more words and propositions in personal narratives (p < .003). Therefore,
there appears to be a gender effect of education with women achieving higher educational
attainment than their male counterparts allowing them to better manage complex narrative
paradigms.
Hypothesis 2
Women produced significantly more evaluative comments than men (p < .001). This
effect was particularly apparent in personal narratives where women generated morals and
other commentaries to their stories. Men generally ended their stories “matter-of factly”
(e.g.,… and that was that).
Participants with high school diplomas (predominantly men) produced significantly
more evaluative comments (p < .012) and closing statements (p < .006) in personal
narratives than in the complex story-retelling task.
Women produced significantly more evaluative comments in personal narratives (p <
.012).
Hypothesis 3
Women produced significantly more specific lexicalizations (e.g., Betty) to introduce
and reintroduce story characters in both narrative conditions (p < .001). Additionally,
women generally maintained story characters using lexical expressions (e.g., my
grandmother) significantly more often than men (p < .003). Men used more indirect lexical
expressions (e.g., the guy) and pronominal expressions (e.g., he) to introduce and maintain
story characters in both narrative conditions.
Both men and women produced more direct referential expressions to introduce story
characters in personal narrative than in the complex story-retelling task (p < .001).
Conversely, participants produced more ambiguities relative to maintaining story characters
in the complex story-retelling task (p < .000).
Men produced more incidences of ambiguities but the difference was not significant.
Coda
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
Referential Cohesion
Few participants with high school diplomas and virtually no participants with college
degrees used a high proportion of African American Vernacular English (AAVE) in
experimental discourse. It appeared that, based on the sample, highly educated African
Americans may have abandoned the use of AAVE entirely. Therefore, clinicians may not
need to consider vernacular in their assessments unless it is apparent at interview.
Participants with college degrees generally told their narratives linearly and with fewer
incidences of tangentiality indicating adherence to formal narrative structure. However, the
data revealed a large use of pronominal apposition, which is the use of a lexical expression
followed by its co-referring anaphor (e.g., my man James, he went and got me), which should
not be considered unusual in clinical assessment.
Personal narrative
Story-retelling
Significant main effect for gender [F(6,64) = 3.03, p < .011, ηp2 = .22]
Significant main effect for narrative type [F(6,64) = 4.79, p < .000, ηp2 = .310]
Significant interaction between narrative type and gender [F(6,64) = 4.46, p < .001, ηp2 = .295]
70.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
60.00
50.00
50.00
Gender
40.00
p < .031
Gender
40.00
p < .031
30.00
30.00
Gender
Gender
Gender
p < .022
20.00
20.00 Type
p < .003
p < .009
Gender
p < .001
Type
p < .000
10.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
Initial lexicalizations
Relexicalizations
Total lexicalizations
Pronouns
Noun/pronoun proportion
Ambiguity
Female
6.91
12.22
19.24
42.13
67.06
5.76
Male
6.60
11.26
17.87
35.42
62.43
7.74
ACKOWLEDGEMENTS
p < .003
Gender
p < .022
Gender
p < .001
Initial lexicalizations
Relexicalizations
Total lexicalizations
Pronouns
Noun/pronoun proportion
Female
8.87
8.55
17.63
30.82
59.84
Male
5.06
3.95
8.99
19.52
66.02
Ambiguity
36
1.02
0.13
This study was funded by RIMI (SEARCH) Grant # 1343.
Collaborators: Dr. Kay T. Payne, FASHA, CCC-SLP, RIMI Mentor (Howard Univ.);
Research Associates: Carlton F. Wainwright, Stephen Kirby (LaSalle Univ.), and Jodie-Ann
Hodge (Univ of DC).
References
Bernard, J. (1972). Early gender differences in the functional usage of language. Sex Roles: A
Journal of Research, 12, 909-915.
Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosenkrantz, P. S. (1972).
Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 59-78.
Davis, P. J. (1999). Gender differences in autobiographical memory for childhood emotional
experiences [Personality processes and individual differences]. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 76(3), 498-510.
Glass, L. (1992). He says, she says: Closing the communication gap between the sexes. New
York: Putnam Publishing Group.
Glosser, G., & Deser, T. (1992). A comparison of changes in macrolinguistic and microlinguistic
aspects of discourse production in normal aging. Journal of Gerontology, 47(4), P266272.
Hunt, K. W. (1964). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels: The structures to be
analyzed by transformational methods. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University Pub.
Labov, W., & Waletsky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experiences. In J
Helm (Ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts. Seattle: University of Washington Press
Michaud, S. L. (1991). Gender and communication styles. Paper presented at the McNair
Graduate Opportunities Program Conference, University of New Hampshire, Durham,
NH.
Michaud, S. L., & Warner, R. M. (1997). Gender differences in self-reported response in troubles
talk. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 37(7-8), 527-540.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York:
William Morrow.
Ulatowska, H. K., & Chapman, S. (1994). Discourse macrostructure in aphasia. In R. L. Bloom,
L. K. Obler, S. DeSanti, & J. Erlich (Eds.), Discourse analysis and applications: Studies
in adult clinical populations (pp. 29-46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
White, H. (1980). The value of narrativity in the representation of reality. Critical Inquiry, 7, 5printed by
www.postersession.com
27.