Sex Differences in Goals for Supportive Interactions

Abstract

One explanation for sex differences in supportive behavior is that men and women pursue different goals in supportive interactions. Sex differences in goals may themselves be explained by personality traits such as expressivity and supportive self‐efficacy, or situational factors such as target responsibility. The current study examined sex differences in the pursuit of eight supportive goals, and the extent to which differences were explained by personality and situational factors. Participants (254 men, 386 women) read hypothetical scenarios involving a distressed friend who was depicted as responsible or not responsible for his or her problematic situation, and responded to measures of supportive goals and personality traits. Results indicate that women are somewhat more likely to pursue a range of goals that are likely to result in effective supportive messages (e.g., emotional support, problem‐solving). Many of the sex differences in goal pursuit were mediated by the personality traits of expressivity and supportive self‐efficacy.

Keywords:

• Goals
• Sex Differences
• Supportive Communication
• Personality
• Responsibility

Notes

Erina L. MacGeorge (Ph.D., University of Illinois, 1999) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at Purdue University, where Bo Feng (M.A., Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2001) is a Ph.D. student, and Stacy A. Passalacqua (B.A., University of California Santa Barbara, 2002) is an M.A. student. Ginger L. Butler (M.A., Purdue University, 2003) is an instructor at Beijing Foreign Studies University, and Jennifer Dane (M.A., Purdue, 2004) is employed by the Adventure Center at Pretty Lake, Kalamazoo, MI. The authors gratefully acknowledge assistance in data collection from Ruth Anne Clark, Charlie Pavitt, Wendy Samter, and in data collection and entry from student research assistants Sara Bakker, Jessica Bureau, Beth Domenick, Brianne Donohue, Lindsey Ferris, Erin Hagerty, Lindsey Haskins, Jennifer Hopkins, Gretchen Lehman, Kim McGraw, Nicole Mike, Kate Stephens, and Cathy Southammakosane. A version of this paper was presented at the National Communication Association’s annual convention (Chicago, IL, 2004, Interpersonal Division). Correspondence to: Erina MacGeorge, Department of Communication, Purdue University, Beering Hall 2114, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907‐1366. Tel: [phone]; Email: [email protected]

Compounding this problem is the fact that two of the three studies also employed problematic items as assessments of emotion‐focused goals. The items employed by Kunkel and Burleson (1999) and Samter et al. (1997) to measure their emotion‐focused goal all ask about the intention to help a target talk about his or her feelings. This is an effective but not especially representative strategy for distress reduction (Burleson, 2003; MacGeorge et al., 2003b).

Although Burleson and Gilstrap’s (2002) addition of the “antisocial” or negative goals (escape, dismiss) does expand the set of goals considered, these goals are also defined and measured at a high level of generality.

To test hypotheses beyond the scope of the current study, the scenarios were designed to manipulate perceptions not only of responsibility, but also of stability (the consistency with which the support‐seeker was responsible for problems in his or her life), and effort (the extent to which a support‐seeker had attempted to help him‐ or herself). However, preliminary analyses indicated that stability and effort had inconsequential effects on the variables examined on this research, so analyses were conducted collapsing across these factors.

Three of the problem types were described as being experienced by female friends (e.g., “Christine” didn’t receive a raise) and three were described as being experienced by male friends (e.g., “Patrick” failed the audition). Thus, the sex of the target was confounded with problem type in this data and could not be treated as a separate factor in the analyses. This design limitation raises an interesting question: Does sex of target influence goal pursuit, either independently, or in interaction with sex of provider? To examine this question, we combined the data set employed in the current study with a prior data set (see MacGeorge, 2001) in which the sex of the target in each problem type was reversed (i.e., in the prior data set, “Chris” didn’t receive a raise, “Patti” failed the audition, etc.). This eliminated the confound, permitting sex of target and problem type to be treated as separate factors. However, this analysis showed that sex of target did not influence goal pursuit independently, and did not interact with sex of provider to influence goal pursuit (i.e., there were no “dyad type” effects). Because of these null findings, and the fact that the prior data set did not include measures of the personality variables examined in the current study (expressivity, self‐efficacy, instrumentality), we elected to report only the current results (i.e., without including the prior data set). Further details are available from the first author.

The complete scenarios are available from the first author.

Because the situation‐replication factor was treated as a random factor in this analysis, the estimate of variance due to random factors included not only the variance owing to individual responses (as in a standard F‐test), but also variance deriving from the interaction of the research factors and the situation‐replication factor. For a fuller discussion of the rationale for this form of the F‐test, see Jackson (1992), and Jackson and Brashers (1994).

Because this paper offers no hypotheses with respect to the interactive effects of responsibility and goal type, details of these analyses have been omitted, but are available from the first author (see also MacGeorge, 2001).

With regard to conflict interactions, Fincham and Beach (1999) argue that goals make a good focus for interventions in distressed relationships because ordinary people typically focus more on perceived intentions than on actual behavior. Thus, education or intervention that concentrates on evaluating and modifying supportive goals could be more effective at improving the quality of supportive communication than focusing on behavior itself.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Erina L. MacGeorge

Erina L. MacGeorge (Ph.D., University of Illinois, 1999) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at Purdue University, where Bo Feng (M.A., Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2001) is a Ph.D. student, and Stacy A. Passalacqua (B.A., University of California Santa Barbara, 2002) is an M.A. student. Ginger L. Butler (M.A., Purdue University, 2003) is an instructor at Beijing Foreign Studies University, and Jennifer Dane (M.A., Purdue, 2004) is employed by the Adventure Center at Pretty Lake, Kalamazoo, MI. The authors gratefully acknowledge assistance in data collection from Ruth Anne Clark, Charlie Pavitt, Wendy Samter, and in data collection and entry from student research assistants Sara Bakker, Jessica Bureau, Beth Domenick, Brianne Donohue, Lindsey Ferris, Erin Hagerty, Lindsey Haskins, Jennifer Hopkins, Gretchen Lehman, Kim McGraw, Nicole Mike, Kate Stephens, and Cathy Southammakosane. A version of this paper was presented at the National Communication Association’s annual convention (Chicago, IL, 2004, Interpersonal Division). Correspondence to: Erina MacGeorge, Department of Communication, Purdue University, Beering Hall 2114, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907‐1366. Tel: [phone]; Email: [email protected]