“Guys Can't Say That to Guys”: Four Experiments Assessing the Normative Motivation Account for Deficiencies in the Emotional Support Provided by Men

Abstract

Men are less likely than women to provide sensitive emotional support when attempting to comfort others. This paper reports four experiments that tested a normative motivation account for this sex difference, which maintains that men employ less sensitive messages because they desire to avoid acting in what they view as a feminine manner. We propose that target sex and gender schematicity influence the perceived normativeness of comforting behaviors and examined how these variables affected: participants’ judgments of the normativeness of helpers’ behavior (Experiment 1); helpers’ goals, as reflected in judgments about the importance of different ends that might be pursued in support situations (Experiment 2); helpers’ plans, as reflected in judgments about the appropriateness of different comforting messages (Experiment 3); and helpers’ actions, as reflected in the verbal messages produced to comfort distressed friends (Experiment 4). These studies supported the normative motivation account, but also indicated that other factors influence comforting behavior.

Keywords:

• Comforting
• Gender Schematicity
• Interaction Goals
• Message Plans
• Sex Differences

The authors gratefully acknowledge Melanie Taylor Harris for her assistance with data collection for parts of Experiments 1–/3, and Dr. Erina MacGeorge who provided access to the data reported in Experiment 4.

Notes

Preparation of this article was supported, in part, by a fellowship awarded to the first author by the Center for Behavioral and Social Sciences, College of Liberal Arts, Purdue University. Portions of Experiment 1 were presented on the Top Papers Panel of the Interpersonal Communication Division at the 2003 meeting of the National Communication Association, Miami, FL. Portions of Experiments 2–/4 were presented on Top Papers Panel of the Interpersonal Communication Division at the 2004 meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago, IL.

1. Details regarding analyses for problem content are available from the first author on request.

2. Copies of the conversational transcripts are available from the first author on request. Similar, though not identical, transcripts were employed by Samter et al. (1987).

3. The analysis of normative motivation developed in this paper also suggests that the use of LPC messages by female helpers is deviant with respect to prevailing gender norms (just as is the use of HPC messages by male helpers). This notion is explored in detail elsewhere (Holmstrom, Burleson, & Jones, 2005).

4. Intriguingly, men's liking for the female HPC helper was positively associated with perceived femininity of the helper's behavior, r=.55, p<.01 (but was unassociated with self-perceived masculinity, r=.17). Among men, the perceived realism of interactions involving an HPC female helper was not significantly associated with either measure of gender schematicity.

5. No predictions regarding sex differences in the importance assigned the solve goal are suggested by previous research; men and women have been found to view this goal as equally important (Kunkel & Burleson, 1999; Samter, Whaley, Mortenson, & Burleson, 1997).

6. No differences due to helper sex, target sex, or the interaction of these two factors were observed for ratings of the solve goal.

7. The data analyzed in Experiment 4 were originally collected and reported by MacGeorge et al. (2003). Informed by the concept of normative motivation, the present paper reports a distinct set of analyses that are more focused, directional, and, therefore sensitive than those reported by MacGeorge et al. (2003). In particular, the normative motivation account of sex differences in supportive behavior suggested that target sex would influence messages produced by male helpers in the high responsibility condition; this hypothesis warranted the use of planned comparisons, which were more sensitive than the omnibus F-tests originally employed by MacGeorge et al. (2003) in their analyses of these data. The use of more sensitive planned comparisons explains our detection of effects for target sex—effects that were not detected or reported by MacGeorge et al. (2003). For additional details about the methodology employed in Experiment 4, see MacGeorge et al. (2003).

8. A sixth hypothetical situation (which involved parents threatening to withdraw driving privileges from the target) was employed by MacGeorge et al. 2003, with 208 additional participants responding to this situation. However, detailed analyses by MacGeorge et al. 2003 indicated that responses to this situation differed significantly from the other five situations (perhaps because the loss of driving privileges was likely to affect the helper as well as the respondent); thus this situation (and the participants responding to it) was dropped from the current study.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Brant R. Burleson

Brant R. Burleson (Ph.D., University of Illinois, 1982; email: [email protected]) is a professor in the Department of Communication at Purdue University

Amanda J. Holmstrom

Amanda J. Holmstrom (M. A., Purdue University, 2004; email: [email protected]) is a doctoral student

Cristina M. Gilstrap

Cristina M. Gilstrap (Ph.D., Purdue University, 2004; email: [email protected]) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication, Drury University, 900 N. Benton, Springfield, MO 65802