TV fights: women and men in interpersonal arguments on prime-time television dramas.

• Author: Brinson, Susan L.

(1985). Media gratifications research: Current perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Pearson, J., Turner, L., Todd-Mancillas, W. (1991). Gender and communication. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown, Publishers.

Reinisch, J. M. and Sanders, S. A. (1986). A test of sex differences in aggressive response to hypothetical conflict situations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 50 (5), 1045-1049.

Interpersonal arguments are the subject of considerable research (e.g., Benoit, 1983; Buss, 1989; Canary et al., 1988; Trapp, 1989; Yelsma & Brown, 1985) focusing on various aspects of argument. The present study contributes to this research through a content analysis of interpersonal arguments in prime-time television dramas. The research question guiding this project asks how women and men, as members of dyads, were presented in interpersonal arguments. Two theoretical assumptions pilot the study. Media socialization theory posits media consumers learn certain behaviors by identifying with and modeling the attitudes and actions of television characters (Jeffres, 1986). Some feminist theorists similarly argue that gender-based behaviors are learned through the socialization process; hence, women and men are taught to behave in feminine and masculine ways (Donovan, 1988; Garskof, 1971). Given these theoretical assumptions, this study addresses four key questions: What behaviors of interpersonal conflict are represented in prime-time television dramas? How do women and men characters argue? What do they argue about? How do they resolve their conflicts?

This study focuses on television representations of interpersonal arguments. Section one provides a review of research in sex-role socialization, interpersonal arguments, conflict issues, strategies of conflict resolution, and media socialization theory. Section two explains the content analysis method. Section three provides the results, and section four discusses the implications of the results.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The following section reviews the research laying the foundation for this content analysis. Sex-role socialization, interpersonal conflicts, conflict issues, strategies for conflict resolution, and media socialization theory each will be addressed.

Sex-role Socialization

Women and men learn certain behaviors and attitudes are expected of them because they are women or men. Gender-role expectations are communicated in many different ways: through parents, organizations, peers, and the mass media. People are taught, generally speaking, that women should behave in a "feminine" way: passive, affectionate, gentle, kind, soft-hearted, dependent, nurturing, understanding, other-oriented. Conversely, men learn to behave in masculine ways: aggressive, confident, independent, rational, self-oriented. Studies indicate individuals accept these gender definitions and apply them in making personal judgments about others (Cowan & Stewart, 1977; Karabetian & Smith, 1977; Richardson, 1981). Indeed, a widely-used psychological instrument, the Bem Sex Role Inventory, assumes these sex-role differences to be recognizable (Bem, 1974).

Gender-based socialization inherently affects every aspect of people's lives, including interpersonal arguments. Within these conflicts, one possible response is physical aggression. For the most part, interpersonal aggression is socially disallowed in the United States. This general attitude, however, is delineated for women and men. Women are taught their "rage is inappropriate. It is not 'nice' to get angry or violent. It is not 'ladylike'" (Schaef, 1981, p. 86). Given that women are discouraged from using aggression, they are unlikely to use it as a means to resolve interpersonal conflict. Men are taught a different lesson. Many studies reveal that boys are more likely to manifest aggressive behavior (Lott, 1981, p. 49). Moreover, such behavior is "winked" at and accepted according to the adage that "boys will be boys." Similarly, men may be more likely to resort to physical aggression as a means of resolution. The manner in which sex-role differences may be expressed in interpersonal conflicts will be developed in the next section.

Interpersonal Conflicts

From an early age one experiences interpersonal conflicts. Arguments are distinguished from other forms of interpersonal communication through the element of disagreement. Benoit defines arguments as the practice of "intending to induce conversational partners to recognize the rightness of their beliefs or actions" (1983, p. 550). This definition is useful for four reasons. First, it presents interpersonal argument from the social actor's perspective and focuses attention on individuals and their experiences. In this regard, emphasis is placed on preservation of individuals and perceptions of arguments. Second, it distinguishes between making an argument, a rhetorical undertaking, and having an argument, an interpersonal experience often characterized by irrational statements (O'Keefe, 1977). Third, the definition recognizes arguments may occur for a wide variety of reasons such as the definition of something or a course of action to take. Finally, the definition assumes the goal of at least one of the conversational partners is to convince the other that she/he is correct in her/his perception.

Interpersonal disagreement may be manifested verbally and nonverbally. As sex-role socialization suggests, however, women and men are likely to argue differently. In addition, the findings of studies of gender differences in interpersonal communication imply that they argue differently.

Women

Nonverbal characteristics. In many ways, the nonverbal behavior of women signifies withdrawal or passivity. Eye contact is a source of nonverbal power (Butler, 1981; Richardson, 1981), and women often do not maintain long periods of eye contact (Dierks-Stewart, 1979; Pearson et al., 1991). Passivity is also manifested through physical or emotional withdrawal. Sex role socialization discourages women from engaging in conflict; consequently, withdrawal may be a frequent strategy.

Voice quality is an effective way for women to demonstrate their femininity. Women are taught a lady speaks with a quiet voice (Bate, 1988; Butler, 1981). Thus, women are discouraged from raising their voices during interpersonal arguments since this would not be consistent with "ladylike" behavior.

Verbal characteristics. Women are similarly discouraged from engaging in aggressive behavior, including verbal aggression. Verbal aggression is "a category of interpersonal conflict which involves attacks on the self-concept of one's 'opponent' instead of ... one's opponent's position on the issue" (Trapp, 1989, p. 106). For this study, interrupting, name-calling, using sarcasm, and making "You" statements exemplify verbal aggression.

Although conflicting interpretations of the meaning of interruptions exist (Tannen, 1990), they are generally recognized as a strategy "designed to communicate dominance" (Infante, 1988, p. 88). As such, women would be less likely to use them.

Name-calling is an obvious form of verbal attack. We are taught name-calling is an immature response to conflict, yet many engage in it nonetheless. Women are unlikely to engage in name-calling because it is a form of verbal aggression and because women are taught to be other-oriented. Therefore a woman would be unlikely to verbally attack the conflict partner and, thereby, demonstrate disrespect for that person.

Another form of verbal aggression is the use of sarcasm in which one partner contemptuously reproaches the thoughts or actions of the other. Again, sarcasm seems inconsistent with feminine other-oriented behavior.

Finally, "you" statements are considered verbal aggression. "You" statements are accusatory remarks made during interpersonal arguments, such as "you always do that" or "you never believe what I say," that shift attention from the central issue to the perceived inadequacies of the conversational partner (Butler, 1981). The alternative is "I" statements, a more constructive and assertive approach to an argument. Rather than denouncing the conversational partner, "I" statements assert the ideas and feelings of the speaker. The focus of these statements is the use of the terms "I" or "you," which indicate the perception of the speaker regarding both the conflict and the opponent.

No evidence suggests women and men differ in their use of "you" and "I" statements. The practice may be pervasive regardless of sex. Sex-role socialization suggests men are more likely than women to make "you" statements because aggression is tolerated more in men. This is not to suggest, however, that women would make more "I" statements. In addition to providing a more constructive approach to interpersonal conflict, "I" statements also focus attention on the self. Women are taught to be other-oriented, thereby diverting attention from the self. Hence, women's use of "I" statements is not consistent with sex role socialization. It is unclear which statements will be manifested by either sex.

Men

Nonverbal characteristics. Masculinity is manifested in nonverbal behaviors as well. "Males' nonverbal training is often directed specifically toward showing strength, not vulnerability, and towards controlling rather than being controlled by their emotions" (Bate, 1988, p. 69). Masculine behavior requires that nonverbal cues carry messages of dominance. For example, persistent eye contact, in which one does not "back down" from the other's gaze, is perceived as aggressive (Butler, 1981; Richardson, 1981); therefore, men would likely engage in eye contact as a form of aggression or self-confidence.

Verbal characteristics. The verbal characteristics of conflict also reflect sex-role socialization. There is a greater acceptance of men raising their voices during arguments (Lakoff, 1975), which is consistent with self-confidence, independence and, perhaps...