Sex Differences in the Expression and Use of Computer-Mediated Affective Language
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although women have been stereotyped as more emotionally expressive than men, the extant empirical evidence on sex differences in the expression and use of affective communication is equivocal. The authors examined the influence of sex and context on the expression and use of computer-mediated affective language in a sample of young adults. A total of 56 undergraduates (28 males, 28 females) were paired in same-sex dyads and randomly assigned to either a webcam or no webcam condition. The participants engaged in a 10-min free chat online conversation in the laboratory. Transcripts were objectively coded for the use of affective communication and traditional linguistic and conversational style measures. The analyses revealed separate significant Sex × Webcam Condition interactions on the affective quality of language used and the expression of computer-mediated emotion. Men in the webcam condition used significantly less active words than men in the no webcam condition and less than women in the webcam condition. Women in the webcam condition used significantly more emoticons than women in the no webcam condition or men in either condition. Men and women did not differ in their use of emoticons in the no webcam condition. Results suggest that sex differences in the use and expression of computer-mediated affective communication are context specific in an undergraduate sample. Findings are discussed in terms of their larger implications for understanding sex differences in the expression and use of emotion in face-to-face (FTF) social interactions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it