Sociolinguistics

Introduction and Background

Stereotypes associated with gossip divert from its basic communicative, relational, and cultural functions. Gossip is constantly misunderstood as idle chatter in scholarly as well as popular discourse. Recent research in psychology, communication science, and organizational behavior has reframed gossip as a socially strategic action. Gossip has been shown to be critical to social coordination, identification, and norm enforcement as a primary way in which individuals acquire knowledge about both others and themselves (Dores Cruz et al., 2021). Through our study, we examined these ideas from the specific perspective regarding how gendered depictions of gossip have evolved across generations within popular media, namely television dramas.

Before looking into this, we were already aware of previous information regarding gendered patterns of gossip, i.e., the idea that women and men gossip differently. Past research characterized women as gossiping primarily about relationships and personal matters so as to participate in social bonding, whereas men gossip to acquire humor or attain status (Levin & Arluke, 1985). Current research maintains this trend, with women participating in emotion-focused, relation-directed means of gossip in the context of coalition-building (Davis et al., 2018). We also know that men, on the other hand, gossip far less overall and use gossip in instrumental functions as a way to navigate social positioning. Such behaviors cohere with Deborah Tannen’s theoretical framework, distinguishing “rapport talk”, a related, connection-directed characteristic of women, and “report talk,” an informational, hierarchical characteristic of men (Van Herk, 2018).

Despite the fact that such patterns have long since taken root, there was no framework to comprehend the way in which media representations reinforce or challenge these gendered communication norms in the long run–the leading question guiding our own research. While prior research has explored gendered patterns in gossip, few studies have examined whether and how gossip has evolved across generations or been portrayed differently over time in television. This gap in the literature motivated our study, as we aimed to investigate whether shifts in gender norms were mirrored in media discourse. With continued influence from television to the public eye regarding social conduct, the issue we examined involved whether gender representations in gossip have shifted in sync with gender norms. With this, our research documents the construction of gossip across two periods (1990s–2000s, 2009–2022) in U.S. television with attention to gender. By combining empirical content analysis with sociolinguistic theory, our analyses help demonstrate the idea that gossip is neither fixed nor gendered; it is an evolving social practice.

Methods

In terms of gossip across different generations and genders, we were more interested in how TV shows categorized gossip across two distinct periods and how female-identifying individuals differed in their communication features from male-identifying individuals. First and foremost, we coded for gender identity based on the pronouns that were used in the show. We analyzed different TV shows representing two generational periods. The first period involved shows that were released between 1997-2009, including Friends (Seasons 5 and 8) and Survivor (Season 6). The second period involved TV shows released between 2009-2022, including Love Island (Seasons 1 and 2), Outer Banks, and The White Lotus. All of these episodes were accessed through streaming platforms, including Netflix and Hulu. Because television remains a powerful force in shaping public understandings of identity and interaction, analyzing TV dialogue allows us to observe how gossip reflects or resists evolving social norms.

For each of these shows, we chose approximately three scenes, each around 2 minutes in duration, that featured confrontation, gossip, or situations that all displayed differences between how the two identities communicated with one another. A total of 15 scenes were analyzed and transcribed across all shows. By observing the contrast between individuals, there was an exposure to how gossip can be challenged, and it allowed us to gain insight into each generational period. So, we assessed the prevalence of communication features in the scenes in the two periods of time.

*See Figure 1 below for an example of our transcriptions.*

Figure 1. Transcription from Friends (Season 5, Episode 9), showing a gossip scene used to analyze gendered communication styles like humor and confrontation.

Each television scene was analyzed using six communication features, each previously associated with gendered communication and gossip behavior: indirectness, report, rapport, humor as a shield, status assertion, and meta-commentary. For example, we see indirectness in Love Island when Caro and Cashel are talking about other couples as well as themselves. Caro, who identifies as female, says “ °hh I just (0.3) feel like (0.4) you’re not being ↑honest with me.” Use of the words “I just feel like” indicates hedging, suggesting Caro’s unwillingness to be straightforward due to nerves about how her words may be perceived. In response, Cashel, who identifies as male, says “ <<laughing> I guess I’m just the worst boyfriend ever.>” He uses humor as a shield to avoid taking ownership of his behavior. We also observed a report talk in Friends, when Ross asks, “What’s going on?” to get a factual explanation of the situation, contrasting with rapport talk, like Harper in The White Lotus confiding in Ethan to build emotional alignment over shared social discomfort. Status assertion occurred in Survivor, where one contestant claimed, “They’re playing us,” in an attempt to establish control over the narrative. Lastly, meta-commentary was seen in Outer Banks, when a character prefaced gossip with, “I know we’re being shady, but hear me out…” acknowledging the act of gossiping itself.

Figure 2. Bar chart comparing six gossip features across male and female characters from two TV generations (1997–2009 and 2009–2022), based on average frequency.

Figure 2, a grouped bar chart, compares the previously mentioned communication features across male and female characters in TV shows from two time periods: 1997–2009 and 2009–2022. The X-axis contains the coded communicative traits, while the Y‑axis shows their average frequency on the 0–4 scale. The pattern is striking: use of gossip communicational features by female characters in TV shows remained relatively consistent across the periods, while portrayals of male gossip noticeably shift, especially in regards to a reduced use of humor and indirectness. This suggests a slow blending of gendered language styles, even as clear differences persist.

In addition to data, we analyzed specific TV scenes to demonstrate these trends across contexts. Figure 3 features a moment from the White Lotus, between husband and wife, Ethan and Harper. In one scene, Harper attempts to gossip with Ethan about the other couple they are traveling with, whom she sees as fake, snobby, and arrogant (White, 2022). She uses an indirect style of gossip to assert her status as well as gain rapport from her husband, exemplifying the modern portrayal of female gossip both strategically and socially.

Figure 3. Scene from The White Lotus (Season 2, Episode 2), showing indirect and strategic gossip between characters Harper and Ethan.

To situate our project within real-world discourse, we included several informal references. A TEDx Talk titled “Why gossip is good” by Assem Bisenbay breaks down gossip’s benefits in modern society (Bisenbay, 2019). Another TEDx video, “The virtues of gossip” by Richard Weiner, echoes these ideas by arguing that gossip can foster social cohesion (TEDx, 2013). Additionally, a Reddit thread asking “Why do we love gossip?” offers everyday perspectives that parallel our findings about social bonding and status (CommonRash, 2022). Taking this media into account, our project was structured around five key ideas: gendered gossip, generational communication, TV media discourse, sociolinguistic method, and report vs. rapport talk. These pinpoint our population (TV characters), method (scene-based communication coding), and theoretical orientation. All TV show clips analyzed were publicly available; no private data or human subjects were involved. Our research is the collaborative work of Abigail Garza, Julian Goldman, Faye Turcotte, Madeline Doring, and Dylan Sherr, conducted under the mentorship of Professor Bahtina.

Discussion and Conclusion

Our findings across various scenes in TV shows contribute to the idea of gossip as a whole and what it truly means to privately discuss personal information with others through means of conversing. Gossip itself provides key insights into the ways in which individuals interact on a broader scale, both culturally and socially. In terms of gender and generational differences, studying gossip across all individuals can be used to highlight key aspects of the progression that can be seen in conversational analysis across genders. Through studying numerous television dramas, it can be seen that the ideas of report and rapport amongst male-identifying and female-identifying individuals remain true no matter the time period. This report vs. rapport stereotype can be generally accepted as being a ‘mainstay’ in the scene of gossip itself. So, although there are constant changes occurring in the world, there will still be aspects of gendered gossip that remain constant no matter where we are or what time it is.

References

Bisenbay, A. (2019, September). Why gossip is good [Video]. TED Talks. https://www.ted.com/talks/assem_bisenbay_why_gossip_is_good?utm_campaign=tedspread&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare

Burnett, M. (Executive Producer). (2003, April 3). Girls vs. boys (Season 6, Episode 8) [TV series episode]. In Burnett, M. (Executive producer), Survivor. CBS.

CommonRash. (2022). Why do we love gossip? Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/CasualConversation/comments/v9dyen/why_do_we_love_gossip/

Davis, A. C., Arnocky, S., & Vaillancourt, T. (2018). Sex differences, initiating gossip. In T. K. Shackelford & V. A. Weekes-Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science (pp. 1–8). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_190-1

Dores Cruz, T. D., Nieper, A. S., Testori, M., Martinescu, E., & Beersma, B. (2021). An integrative definition and framework to study gossip. Group & Organization Management, 46(2), 252–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601121992887

Jonas, J., & Pate, S. (Writers), & Pate, J. (Director). (2020, April 15). The runaway (Season 1, Episode 8) [TV series episode]. In Jonas, J., Pate, J., & Pate, S. (Executive producers), Outer Banks. Netflix.

Kauffman, M., & Crane, D. (Writers), & Bright, K. S. (Director). (1998, December 17). The one with Ross’s sandwich(Season 5, Episode 9) [TV series episode]. In Kauffman, M., & Crane, D. (Executive producers), Friends. NBC.

Kauffman, M., & Crane, D. (Writers), & Bright, K. S. (Director). (1999, February 11). The one where everybody finds out (Season 5, Episode 14) [TV series episode]. In Kauffman, M., & Crane, D. (Executive producers), Friends. NBC.

Kauffman, M., & Crane, D. (Writers), & Bright, K. S. (Director). (2001, November 15). The one with the rumor (Season 8, Episode 9) [TV series episode]. In Kauffman, M., & Crane, D. (Executive producers), Friends. NBC.

Levin, J., & Arluke, A. (1985). An exploratory analysis of sex differences in gossip. Sex Roles, 12(3–4), 281–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00287594

Macleod, C. (Director). (2015, June 7). Episode 6 (Season 1, Episode 6) [TV series episode]. In Richard Cowles et al. (Executive producers), Love Island. ITV2.

Macleod, C. (Director). (2016, June 10). Episode 9 (Season 2, Episode 9) [TV series episode]. In Richard Cowles et al. (Executive producers), Love Island. ITV2.

TEDx Talks. (2013, November 19). The virtues of gossip: Richard Weiner at TEDxMiami 2013 [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpiTp2COVZk

Van Herk, G. (2018). Gender. In What is sociolinguistics? (2nd ed., pp. 122–141). Wiley Blackwell. White, M. (Writer & Director). (2022, November 6). Italian dream (Season 2, Episode 2) [TV series episode]. In White, M. (Executive producer), The White Lotus. HBO.

Introduction and Background

When deciding which videos to use for our analysis, there was an initial limitation to our study related to cropping longer videos for brevity and how that would affect audience perceptions of the apologies. With Colleen’s video, for example, we cropped her 10-minute video into a 4-minute video and decided that the middle of the video was a good way to gauge the overall language use. This decision aligns with Ambady and Rosenthal’s concept of thin slices, which suggests that people can accurately judge complex traits such as sincerity or emotional state from brief snippets of behavior. By focusing on a representative portion of the video, we aimed to preserve the essence of the apology while still enabling meaningful analysis grounded in the reliability of these short behavioral samples. (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1992)

Our contribution lies in bridging rhetorical analysis with audience perception, using YouTube apology videos as a case study to explore how sincerity is communicated and interpreted in digital spaces. By analyzing apology videos from these “influencers,” we aim to investigate not only what these public figures say, but how they say it (visually, emotionally, and linguistically). Our thesis is that public apologies are performative acts in which specific communicative choices (like a tearful tone, minimal makeup, or carefully crafted phrasing/scripting) shape whether an audience sees the apology as genuine or manipulative. This project sheds light on how the intersection of image, tone, and language affects credibility in the age of viral accountability and offers a nuanced perspective on the performance of remorse in online culture.

Methods

To examine how public figures convey sincerity in their apology videos, we selected three widely circulated YouTube apologies from the previously mentioned figures. We then distributed these clips to 30+ college students via an open-ended and multiple-choice Google form survey. Participants were asked to reflect on their impressions of the apologies’ sincerity, whether they believed the public figure should be forgiven, and what verbal or nonverbal elements shaped those judgments. Our analysis was guided by two core theoretical frameworks: interpersonal apology theory and Benoit’s image repair discourse (Sandlin, J. K. et al., 2018). Interpersonal apology theory, rooted in communication studies, outlines five key components of a sincere apology: Admitting fault – clearly acknowledging responsibility for the offense, Acknowledging harm – recognizing the damage done to others, Expressing remorse – showing emotional regret and guilt, Asking for forgiveness – signaling a desire to make amends, and Offering compensation or corrective action – providing a tangible or verbal commitment to change.

These components emphasize the relational and emotional dynamics between the offender and the audience, underscoring that sincerity is not just about what is said, but how it’s expressed. To evaluate rhetorical strategies, we applied Benoit’s image repair discourse theory(Sandlin, J. K. et al., 2018). This framework categorizes how individuals and organizations respond to crises through specific strategies, including: Denial (refusing responsibility or shifting blame), Evasion of responsibility (claiming lack of intent or knowledge), Reducing offensiveness (minimizing the severity or attacking accusers), Corrective action (promising to fix the issue), and Mortification (openly admitting guilt and asking for forgiveness).

These strategies are often used in combination and serve to repair the speaker’s public image. By identifying which of these strategies were present in the videos, we could compare them with how participants responded in terms of perceived sincerity and forgiveness.

We also paid attention to nonverbal and contextual cues, such as facial expressions, vocal tone, emotional displays (e.g., crying), clothing, setting, and even the presence or absence of makeup. These elements were analyzed to understand how visual and tonal choices contributed to the perception of sincerity, whether, for instance, a more casual appearance or a somber tone enhanced credibility. We used a dual-method approach to analyze how public figures use specific linguistic and visual strategies in their public apology videos on YouTube to influence the audience’s perception of sincerity, accountability, and forgiveness.

Results and Analysis

Drawing on Benoit’s image repair discourse theory and interpersonal apology theory, we performed a content analysis of the three YouTube videos, focusing on four specific aspects: the influencers repetition of performative verbs (“sorry” or “apologize”), their emotional appearance, denial, and personal presentation to help us better visualize and interpret the survey results (Sandlin, J. K. et al., 2018). We then used a Likert-type scale of 1-10 to measure our perceived perceptions of these four variables (see Table 1), rating 10 as the highest level perceived and 1 as the lowest level perceived. For example, in Table 1, Laura Lee received a 10 for Repetition Level of performative verbs, meaning she repeated the verbs “sorry” and/or “apologize” over ten times. 

Table 1

Perceived level of linguistic and visual features in influencer apology videos (1 = low,10 = high). Levels rated are based on content analysis of all three apology videos.

	Logan Paul	Colleen Ballinger	Laura Lee
Repetition Level of Performative Verbs	6	1	10
Visually Emotional Level	5	2	9
Denial Level	1	8	1
Personal Presentation Level	1	3	1

Survey Results

The other method that we used in our dual method approach was an open-ended online survey. To better visualize how the audience rated the sincerity/accountability of the video, we included one of the responses to our question asking the audience “On a scale from 1 to 7, how sincere/accountable do you find the video?” (1 = not sincere at all, 7 = took full accountability). Highlighting the most significant findings from this question, we found that 60% of surveyors did not find Colleen Ballinger to be sincere/accountable (see Pie Chart 1). We then found that 50% of surveyors found that Logan Paul was somewhat sincere/accountable (see Pie Chart 2). Finally finding that 100% of surveyors did not find Laura Lee sincere/accountable (see Pie Chart 3).

Pie Chart 1

Measuring audiences’ perception of the sincerity of Colleen Ballinger’s apology video (respondents either choose 1 or 3).

Pie Chart 2

Measuring audiences’ perception of the sincerity of Logan Paul’s apology video (here we see a bit more variation in responses).

Pie Chart 3

Measuring audiences’ perception of the sincerity of Laura Lee’s apology video (here we see a unanimous decision).

Measures of Audience Perception:

To better understand the significance of the survey responses and to have clear numerical data, we then used a Likert-type scale of 1-10 to quantify the audience’s free response answers (see Table 2).

Table 2

Audiences’ perceived level of sincerity, forgiveness, accountability, and their changed perception (1 = low, 10 = high). Levels rated are based on free-response answers from open-ended surveys.

	Logan Pual	Colleen Ballinger	Laura Lee
Perceived Sincerity Level	5	2	3
Changed Perception Level	2	1	1
Forgiveness Level	3	1	2
Perceived Accountability level	7	5	2

We, from quantifying audiences free-response questions into a Likert-type scale, were able to see a clear trend. In the videos where the influencers received higher numbers on our content analysis scale, audience members were more likely to rate sincerity levels lower. Meaning, influencers who were visually more emotional, used more repetition of words such as “sorry”, and who expressed more denial of wrongdoing, were found by the audience to have less sincere apologies. The audience was also likely to rate the accountability level lower (see Table 2). For Logan Paul, responses were more mixed, though they mostly leaned negative or unchanged. For Laura Lee, the majority of participants reacted very negatively, describing the apology as overly emotional, manipulative, or performative. Finally, for Colleen Ballinger, we found that the apology reinforced or worsened existing negative opinions, even if they had already stopped watching her (likely due to the use of a guitar and breaking out into song, which can come off as dismissive and playful during a serious situation). Overall, we were able to see that Logan and Laura took more of an interpersonal route of apology (5/5 components of IAT), whereas Collen was geared more towards image repair (4/5 components of IRDT), which heavily affected audience perception of sincerity.

Some things to note when looking at such apologies are that “The medium is the message”. This reminds us that how an apology is delivered (through a platform like YouTube) shapes audience perception just as much as the content of the apology itself. (McLuhan, 1964)

Discussion and Conclusion

In conclusion, we considered audience commentary on YouTube as part of the broader discursive context. Comment sections often revealed whether viewers thought the apology was believable or performative, and frequently referenced the public figure’s prior reputation. This ties into the two-step flow model, which suggests that public opinion is shaped not just by media content but by influential opinion leaders (for example; top commenters or media coverage) who interpret and amplify messages for others. We also acknowledged the mass-personal nature of YouTube apologies (where personal disclosures are made in mass communication formats) and how this shapes expectations of authenticity and vulnerability. (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, & Gaudet, 1944)

References

Choi, G. Y., & Mitchell, A. M. (2022). So sorry, now please watch: Identifying image repair strategies, sincerity and forgiveness in YouTubers’ apology videos. Public Relations Review, 48(4), 102226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2022.102226.

Holmbom, M. (2015). The YouTuber : A Qualitative Study of Popular Content Creators (Dissertation). https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-105388.

Ohbuchi, K.-I., Watanabe, N., & Narisawa, K. (2013). Effects of timing and sincerity of an apology on satisfaction and changes in negative feelings during conflicts. Communication Reports, 26(1), 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2013.770160.

Uoti, K. (2022). Apology as a Speech Act Set: Apology strategies of social media influencers in the context of the Covid-19 Pandemic (Doctoral dissertation, Master’s Thesis, University of Turku]. UTUPub. https://urn.fi/URN:NBN: fi-fe2022042530307).

Matheson, B. (2023). Fame and redemption: On the moral dangers of celebrity apologies. Social Philosophy. https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/108820/1/Journal_of_Social_Philosophy_-_2023_-_Matheson_-_Fame_and_redemption__On_the_moral_dangers_of_celebrity_apologies.pdf

Sandlin, J. K., & Gracyalny, M. L. (2018). Seeking sincerity, finding forgiveness: YouTube apologies as image repair. Public Relations Review, 44(3), 393–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.04.007.

Introduction and Background

Our project examines how responses to cancel culture operate within and reinforce gender norms. Male misconduct is downplayed through humor and trivialization, and women are held to a higher standard of morality. Further, we argue that cancel culture perpetuates existing power imbalances between men and women. Current research examines cancel culture from moral and emotional lenses, but fails to consider gender’s role in shaping public responses. Our project bridges this gap by analyzing qualitative thematic and linguistic data from social media comments and interpreting how gender influences the reactions.Cancel culture is the widespread phenomenon of cancelling, the public shaming and withdrawal of support from figures engaged in unacceptable behavior (Minkkinen, 2024). Reactions range from moral activism to cyberbullying, and support to moral outrage (Forster & Spitz, 2015). Research shows that cancel culture reflects gender norms. Sailofsky (2021) and Bouvier (2020) found that men’s misconduct is mitigated through “redemption talk.” Ochs & Taylor (1996) show men use narrative control to preserve authority. Dubrofsky (2011), Marwick & Caplan (2018), Cohen (2010), Aprill (2022), Banet-Weiser (2018), and Sobande (2021) show us that women face strict media surveillance around their physical appearance, emotional expression, and perceived morality. Cameron (2005), Ng (2020), and Kosnik & Feldman (2019) demonstrate how gendered expectations shape language and digital expression.

Methods

Our study applies qualitative and thematic discourse analysis to public commentary on four canceled public figures. James Charles, Dr. Disrespect, and Colleen Ballinger were all canceled for inappropriate communication with minors, while Chrissy Teigen was canceled for online harassment and bullying. We collected nondiscriminatory data from TikTok and Reddit, then randomly selected six comments per public figure from the collected data. Our analysis focused on the emerging patterns found in themes, tone, and sentiment. We then noted how the patterns we identified reflect gendered expectations and reactions in common culture. Thematic analysis was established by coding each comment for language, tone, and sentiment patterns. These codes were grouped into themes such as character attack, moral absolutism, victim reframing, body shaming, suspicion of feminine personas, redemption, minimization, believability, audience support, and jokes about appearance. We illustrated our findings with four graphs that were created by counting the occurrences of each theme per person and gender across the sample. Our graphs visually represent and compare the most common reaction themes and how they vary by case and gender.

Results and Analysis

Our findings revealed clear patterns of gendered responses in cancel culture discourse, supported by our thematic and linguistic data.

Male Figures – The responses to James Charles and Dr Disrespect were centered around humor and redemption. Charles and Disrespect received seven instances of redemption talk, five of minimization, and four of audience support. Commenters joked about the men nine times, using humor to deflect accountability, aligning with Sailofsky’s (2021) theory of minimizing male misconduct. Our findings suggest a pattern of forgiving and rationalizing men’s misconduct.

Female Figures – Chrissy Teigen and Colleen Ballinger were subjected to severe judgments. They faced seven attacks on their character, four of moral absolutism, and four of body shaming. The responses focused on the women’s appearance and morality, reflecting the severity of emotional surveillance of women in media (Dubrofsky, 2011). The data also revealed only three instances of jokes in the responses. Call-outs were also much more common for women than men, who had nine occurrences compared to two, highlighting a harsher scrutiny and lower tolerance for women and their misconduct.

Public defenses also suggested a gendered pattern. Men were defended through the minimization and trivialization of their actions and allowances for redemption. Supporting the theory of a double standard in forgiveness and trust, the women did not receive public support or defenses in the responses.

The findings support our thesis by demonstrating how responses to cancel culture are shaped by gender norms. Women are evaluated by what they do and who they are perceived to be. On the other hand, men are more likely to be separated from their actions and allowed to return to their careers. The unequal responses found in the cancellation discourse limit women’s ability to save their reputations from permanent ruin. This suggests that cancel culture does not function as a neutral or impartial form of accountability. Instead, cancel culture is shaped by gender norms and expectations. Rather than responding based on the severity of the misconduct, the public’s responses were contingent on gendered norms and assumptions that reflect who is viewed as redeemable or not.

Discussion and Conclusion

Our findings illustrate how cancel culture functions as a way to police morality, identity, and credibility in a gendered way. Male public figures like James Charles and Dr Disrespect were discussed using themes of understanding, minimization of their misconduct, and the allowance for their redemption. In contrast, responses to Chrissy Teigen and Colleen Ballinger centered on moral absolutism, character attacks, and body shaming. Our analysis suggests men are judged by their perceived intent or potential for change, while women are evaluated based on who people think they ought to be. Further, our findings suggest the personas of the influencers we examined add context to gendered standards. This is particularly important with a figure like James Charles. Charles is a male influencer who goes against traditional masculinity norms. Perhaps due to his perceived femininity and sexual orientation, he did not receive the same protection from appearance-based jokes as men like Dr Disrespect, who personifies stereotypical masculinity. However, his status as a male may have shielded him from the level of cruelty directed at women, particularly Chrissy Teigen, whose appearances were targeted ruthlessly.

The patterns we identified support existing literature on gendered surveillance, digital public shaming, and current understandings of respectability politics. The consistency in findings across public figures also supports the idea that cancel culture is not the equalizing accountability that people understand it to be. Instead, it reinforces double standards across genders. Women are more likely to face moral scrutiny tied to their appearance and character, while men are afforded redemption. Our research expands the understanding of online accountability and public discourse by exposing how cultural scripts of gendered forgiveness, credibility, and judgment persist even in places meant to challenge norms. As participants in online culture, we play a role in the narratives that shape the perception of public figures. Being mindful of how we respond to public figures’ misconduct, through the language we use and standards we uphold, can help challenge and reform gender bias in media scrutiny. Holding people accountable is important, but we must do so objectively and with self-awareness in order to foster an equitable digital society.

Figure 1: Thematic Findings in Cancelled Women’s Discourse

Figure 2: Thematic Findings in Cancelled Men’s Discourse

X-axis: Categories Identified in Comment Sections  Y-axis:  Number of Occurrences

Figure 3: Linguistic Findings in Cancelled Women’s Discourse           

Figure 4: Linguistic Findings in Cancelled Men’s Discourse

X-axis: Linguistic Categories Identified in Comment Sections Y-axis:  Number of Occurrences

YouTube Videos on Cancel Culture

1. James Charles Misconduct

James Charles Career Is Basically Dead. Why?

2. Discussion Surrounding Dr Disrespect’s Misconduct Dr Disrespect Situation Just Got Worse
3. Chrissy Teigen Misconduct

The rise and fall of ‘undercover bully’ Chrissy Teigen

4. Colleen Ballinger Misconduct Colleen Ballinger Controversy: The FULL Story Break Down | E! News
5. Problems in Cancel Culture TED Talk

Cancel Culture: The Decline and Disconnect Within Society  | Jasmine Iacullo | TEDxYouth@NBPS

Keywords

1. Gendered forgiveness: the observed phenomena of the act or severity of forgiveness being correlated to the presented gender of the accused or wrongdoer
2. Asymmetric accountability: Individuals or groups are held responsible for their actions asymmetrically. The consequences, repercussions, or scrutiny they face are not equal to those of other individuals or groups.
3. Misconduct minimization: downplaying the significance or severity of one’s wrongdoing through various methods to reduce guilt, shame, or accountability
4. Aesthetic and emotional surveillance: The act of monitoring and analyzing a public figure’s appearance and emotions, especially women’s, to control, influence, or make judgments comparative to societal and gender norms
5. Redemption: the successful offset or compensation for a defect, misconduct, or failure

References

Aprill, Julie, “The Effects of Moral Violations on Parasocial Relationships with Influencers” (2024). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 3981. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/etd/3981

Banet-Weiser, S. (2018). Empowered: Popular Feminism and Popular Misogyny. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11316rx

Bouvier, G. (2020). Racist call-outs and cancel culture on Twitter: The limitations of the platform’s mechanisms for accountability. Discourse, Context & Media, 38, 100431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2020.100431

Cameron, D. (2005). Language, Gender, and Sexuality: Current issues and new directions. Applied Linguistics, 26(4), 482–502. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami027

​​Cohen, E. L. (2010). Expectancy violations in relationships with friends and media figures. Communication Research Reports, 27(2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824091003737836

De Kosnik, A., & Feldman, K. (Eds.). (2019). #identity: Hashtagging race, gender, sexuality, and nation. University of Michigan Press https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/24497/9780472901098.pdf

Dubrofsky, R. E. (2011). The Surveillance of Women on Reality TV: Watching The Bachelor and The Bachelorette. Lexington Books https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/spe_facpub/646

Marwick, A. E., & Caplan, R. (2018). Drinking male tears: Language, the manosphere, and networked harassment. Feminist Media Studies, 18(4), 543–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2018.1450568

Minkkinen, L. (2024b). “Girl, you’re still cancelled”: analysis of public ‘cancel culture’ Apologies and responses. https://jyx.jyu.fi/jyx/Record/jyx_123456789_95151#description

Ng, E. (2020). No grand pronouncements here. . .: Reflections on cancel culture and digital media participation. Television & New Media, 21(6), 621–627. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476420918828

Ochs, E. and Taylor, C.” (1996) The Father Knows Best:’ Dynamic in Family Dinner Narratives.” In Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self. K.Hall (ed). Routledge. Pp.97-121.

Sailofsky, D. (2021). Masculinity, cancel culture and woke capitalism: Exploring Twitter response to Brendan Leipsic’s leaked conversation. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 57(5), 734-757. https://doi.org/10.1177/10126902211039768 (Original work published 2022)

Sobande, F. (2021). Spectacularized and branded digital (re)presentations of Black women on YouTube. Television & New Media, 22(2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476420983745

Tukachinsky Forster, Rebecca & Spitz, Daniel. (2025). I Love You, but I Have Got to Cancel You: Psychological Consequences of Participation in Cancel Culture. Psychology of Popular Media. 10.1037/ppm0000598.

Research Question: LOL vs 😂: How Digital Laughter Varies Across Generations

Introduction and Background            

For this project, the target population will be Generation Z and Generation Alpha. Generation Z refers to those born in 1997 up until those born in 2012. Generation Alpha refers to those born in 2010 up until those born in 2024. With digital communication being one of the main sources of communication in today’s world, we want to explore how the two most recent generations, more specifically the younger generations, have become linguistic innovators. In these more recent generations, it has become evident that people now create their own rules for punctuation and have normalized not using punctuation (Guo, 2016). Both Generation Z and Generation Alpha have grown up using technology. From smartphones to social media to messaging platforms, both generations have been surrounded by technology as a main source of communication. In typical face-to-face communication, people physically show their emotions, whether they are happy, sad, excited, shocked, angry, humorous, etc. However, in today’s digital world, those non-verbal cues like facial expressions and vocal intonation are replaced by the use of emojis and expressions of amusement. The specific expressions we are going to focus on for this project are “LOL, LMAO, and HAHA,” and when they are being used by Gen Z and Gen Alpha, as well as certain emojis that pertain to humor. It is made clear that age is something that significantly impacts how emojis are classified (Chen et al., 2024). It is well established that textese are commonly used (Sánchez-Moya & Cruz-Moya, 2015). Both generations tend to use these phrases digitally quite often. “LOL” is an acronym that means laugh out loud, and over time, it has been used as a tone marker instead of an actual sign of laughter. “LMAO” is a more bold and exaggerated phrase to signal laughter, and “HAHA” is also used to express genuine laughter. Understanding the reasoning behind these linguistic patterns will allow for more expansive knowledge on how digital communication norms evolve and continue to grow amongst the new generations and today’s youth.

Methods

Our approach was to collect data using our two population groups. These participants were chosen due to their generational ages and the majority of individuals had relationships to the researchers. These relationships consisted of group members and included siblings, roommates, friends, classmates and cousins.

Next, the materials used throughout our research were observable data through screenshots of text messages and google form surveys to collect individual data. We first collected the observable data using real life conversations within text messages and organized these into the two generational groups. After collecting observable data we created google form surveys to either discredit or prove our origin hypothesis. The survey used the same questions for both generations and included 10 responses from Gen Z and 10 responses from Gen A participants. This survey began by asking those engaging in the study to indicate whether they are Gen Z or Gen A. Then, the succeeding question followed with a “Select All That Apply” to indicate which styles (i.e. lol/LOL, haha/HAHA, lmao/LMAO, 😭, 😂, 💀) of digital laughter they use. Additionally, the next questions after those included Likert scales ranging from (1) Not at All to,  (5) Frequently. This scale determined the likelihood and frequency of each form of digital laughter and allowed us to measure the different forms of usage between each generation. The survey questions are specific to ensure detailed conclusions of responses, which changes in polarity to see visible opposing viewpoints. Although, due to using the survey method, the participants must have personal accountability to respond truthfully. All responses collected were anonymous and included all participants to agree on responses being used publicly.

Furthermore, the data collected within this methodological procedure was coded using all participants’ responses to understand the opposition among generations. Using the survey responses we divided each individual reply into Gen Z and Gen A categories. We then analyzed each form, marking down each response from all 13 questions. This is how we gathered the differences between frequency and style of digital laughter used in online communication styles between Gen Z and Gen A. This procedure allowed us to determine statistical data in which we could affirm or negate the hypothesis from our observable data.

Results and Analysis

Through the collection of our data, we were able to confirm details within our hypothesis as well as gather new information that supported our research study. Our results suggested that while both generations profusely engage in online laughter, there is a difference in how they use it and in what forms. For example, results from our survey collection indicated higher use of overall online laughter particularly verbal laughter amongst Gen Z with phrases such as “lol/LOL” and “lmao/LMAO” receiving 70-80% usage compared to that of Gen A’s (55% and 11%). Gen A on the other hand relied on emoji usage more so than Gen Z. However as per survey data, Gen A participants were less likely to use digital laughter than their counterparts. These results were portrayed through our bar graph which compared digital laughter use among the generations with Gen Z represented in teal color and Gen A through blue. When comparing verbal laughter and emoji usage, our graph depicted patterns of Gen Z participants selecting verbal responses with ranging levels of 2-4 while Gen A participants selected fewer verbal responses and drifted to emoji usage at higher levels. As stated previously, these results aided in identifying patterns between the generations and noting the differences in expression through online laughter.

Based on the results, we see that while there are some differences between the two generations, there are no big differences. Usually when comparing 2 different generations, there are clear and distinct differences, often big ones. However, we found that the differences are hardly any and relatively small. The small differences can show how similar and closely related these 2 generations are in regards to digital communication and emoji usage. The gap between generations is not large, they have some nuances but it doesn’t stop them from effectively communicating with each other. Our findings show that both Gen Z and Gen Alpha frequently use digital laughter, but slightly differ in how and with what tone they express it. Emojis allow us to speak in ‘gestures’ through digital platforms and let conversation flow more freely (McCulloch, 2019). It is almost as if texting is the new speaking in-person in today’s day and age. While texting using digital laughter, in a study done on Whatsapp, researchers found that this turn-taking was similar to face-to-face conversations (Petitjean & Morel, 2017).

Discussion and Conclusion

Based on the results, we see that while there are some differences between the two generations, there are no big differences. Usually when comparing 2 different generations, there are clear and distinct differences, often big ones. However, we found that the differences are hardly any and relatively small. The small differences can show how similar and closely related these 2 generations are in regards to digital communication and emoji usage. The gap between generations is not large, they have some nuances but it doesn’t stop them from effectively communicating with each other. Our findings show that both Gen Z and Gen Alpha frequently use digital laughter, but slightly differ in how and with what tone they express it. Emojis allow us to speak in ‘gestures’ through digital platforms and let conversation flow more freely (McCulloch, 2019). It is almost as if texting is the new speaking in-person in today’s day and age. While texting using digital laughter, in a study done on WhatsApp, researchers found that this turn-taking was similar to face-to-face conversations (Petitjean & Morel, 2017).

As Gen Z college students ourselves, we are aware that the majority of Gen Z had a childhood without texting, but as we grew older, we started to text more using emojis and digital laughter as those evolved. While Gen Alpha grew up with texting, we wanted to explore if that dynamic made a difference in the use of digital laughter between the two generations. Early Gen Z are digital natives but vividly remember analog life. They’re the last generation who remembers what it was like to have a flip phone as their first device, use physical CDs or DVDs, write handwritten letters or notes, and live without constant access to everything online. Yet, they adapted to technology so quickly that they can navigate both analog and digital worlds fluidly. Gen Alpha however, cannot relate to that since emojis and digital laughter have been around since the beginning of that generation. For example, the “tears of joy” emoji, or the first laughing emoji was created in 2010, which is the beginning of Gen Alpha. Digital laughter amongst both generations is a crucial part of online communication and a way of expression.

References:

Chen, Y., Yang, X., Howman, H., & Filik, R. (2024). Individual differences in emoji comprehension: Gender, age, and culture. PLOS ONE. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0297379

Guo, J. (2016). Stop. Using. Periods. Period. – The Washington Post. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/13/stop-using-periods-period-2

McCulloch, G. (2019, June 1). Because the internet: Understanding the new rules of language. Explorations in Media Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1386/eme_00039_5

Petitjean, C., & Morel, E. (2017, January 25). “hahaha”: Laughter as a resource to manage WhatsApp conversations. Journal of Pragmatics. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216616302594

Sánchez-Moya, A., & Cruz-Moya , O. (2015, April 21). WhatsApp, Textese, and moral panics: Discourse features and habits across two generations. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042815013786

Introduction and Background

Texting has become a primary mode of interaction, and with it, a new kind of nonverbal language has emerged. As digital communication becomes more widely used to communicate, the rules for how one should interpret a text aren’t always agreed upon. Their interpretations vary due to our age and experience within our generational environments. What feels natural and obvious to one generation can feel informal, confusing, or new to another.

This study aims to investigate how two generations, Gen X and Gen Z, navigate digital body language. Our study begins by introducing digital body language (DBL), the way people subtly and non-verbally communicate and express themselves through their use of capitalization, punctuation, emojis, slang, acronyms, response times, etc., in constructing online messages (Irshad, 2024). Followed by an overview of our research methods and implementation. Then we present the key findings from the participants’ responses, highlighting generational differences in interpretation, tone, responses, and emoji usage. Finally, we review the broader implications of these different generations and discuss their ability to adapt when navigating unfamiliar digital cues and how their responses may be shaped by varying levels of cultural immersion in the digital age. 

As texting has become a dominant form of communication, people have developed new ways to express tone and emotion without speaking. These include punctuation, emojis, and message interpretations, which researchers often call digital body language. While these features help fill in the gaps left by the absence of facial expressions and vocal tone, their meaning can vary depending on who is reading them.

Prior studies have shown that younger generations tend to use and interpret these digital cues differently from older ones. For example, Gen Z, who grew up immersed in texting and social media, often assigns emotional weight or social meaning to features like lowercase typing or a final period. The New York Post report noted that, to young people, “using a period in messaging now looks rather emphatic, and can come across as if you’re quite cross or annoyed” (Frishberg, 2020). For example, Gen Z, who grew up immersed in texting and social media, often assigns emotional weight or social meaning to features like lowercase typing or a final period. In contrast, Gen X may interpret the same features through a more literal lens, viewing them as grammatical or functional rather than expressive. Binghamton University psychology research found that texts ending in periods were perceived as less sincere than those without punctuation, suggesting that punctuation alone can change emotional tone (Klin, 2016).

Despite growing research in online communication and generational differences, there is still limited understanding of how digital body language is interpreted across generations in casual text exchanges. Our study focuses on this gap by comparing how Gen Z and Gen X understand and use key digital features in message-based conversations. We aim to uncover whether the same text message is read differently depending on the generation of the reader, and what this might reveal about changing norms in digital communication.

Figure 1

Generational Differences in Emoji Use and Interpretation

TikTok – Generational Emoji Usage

Note. A viral TikTok humorously captures the difference between generational interpretations of emojis. The creator of the video explains, “we really gotta teach our parents how to properly use emojis…” then shows the text he received, which said “your uncle Mark died [skull emoji]”. Gen Z often uses the skull emoji to express exaggerated reactions, humor, or sarcasm, unlike Gen X, which interprets this emoji as literal death, which contributed to the message sounding comical and inappropriate.                 

Figure 2

Generational Differences in Texting

YouTube Video – Texting Across Generations

Note. A snippet from a podcast episode discusses how our digital interactions are shaped by our relationships with others. One of the speakers talks about how the way she positions her digital body language depends on the person she’s texting, saying that “different people bring out different texting sides of me” (The Council, 2025). She then goes on to talk about how this switch-up is especially prevalent when she is texting members of older generations, such as her father. When messaging her father, she’s observed that their text conversations are based entirely on message content and practicality, and there’s less of an emphasis on tone and nuances.

Methods

Data was gathered from ten participants, five members of Generation X and five members of Generation Z, through semi-structured interviews. Each interview consisted of the same exact format, but was semi-structured in the way that the design encouraged follow-up questions and elaboration from interviewees. The interviews were divided into four parts: (1) demographic and technology profile, (2) message-interpretation task, (3) punctuation and capitalization, and (4) emoji-choice scenario. The first section collected basic background information, such as age, gender, and technology usage habits. The second part presented five different text messages, written by us. Each message contained one or more features of digital body language—punctuation marks, capitalization or lack thereof, emojis, and acronyms. We showed each participant these messages, one by one, and asked them what tone they perceived and how they would respond. The third exercise was also made up of messages we designed, but it focused on only punctuation and capitalization features, such as capitalizing or not capitalizing the first word of the message, capitalizing the entire message, as well as using a period, exclamation point, or no punctuation at all. It also featured three messages with the same exact word content, but two different versions of each message: Version A and Version B. What set these versions apart were their differing levels and use of punctuation and capitalization. After presenting these two different versions, we then had participants choose which version they think is friendlier and explain why. In the final section, participants were presented with eight different emojis to choose from and asked to choose which two they’d use to respond to a message from a friend announcing a new job. Once interviewees chose their top emojis, we asked them two follow-up questions, which were why they picked those emojis and if their choices would change if the message had come from an acquaintance rather than a friend. Through these interviews, we analyzed how members of these different generations interpreted and expressed various online non-verbal cues, also known as components of digital body language. We sought to identify generational differences and patterns in how each generation processed these features.

Results and Analysis

Based on what we have collected, we have obtained results that can help us make inferences out of the differences between Gen X and Gen Z. We found most importantly that in relation to punctuation and formatting, a period (e.g., “Okay.”) is interpreted as annoyance, finality, and/or passive aggression among our Gen Z interviewees. This follows our literature base where, according to Teresa Apgar, “research suggests that younger individuals interpret text-final periods to be more negative in tone, while older individuals interpret it to be neutral” (Apgar, 2022, 1). When it came to tone shift and identification, we found that Gen Z had a strong sensitivity to changes in tone, particularly when familiar contacts shift from informal to formal texting styles that are reflected in the punctuation and capitalization. Another piece of research literature that helps us understand passive-aggressivity mentioned previously is the situation where both subject Gen Z’ers are observed: “Lisa evaluates Nelly’s [non-punctuation lowercase] reaction as inappropriate by repeating her utterance and adding an iterated question mark” (Busch, 2021, 38). Conversely, lowercase messages without periods were deemed more so as friendly and casual among Gen X interviewees. Now, when it comes to emoji use and interpretation, we found that emoji choice changes depending on the relationship for Gen Z (e.g., [flame emoji] is for close friends). This relationship-dependent emoji use selection was not as prevalent in Gen X responses. We theorize that this lack of variety in emoji usage was probably due to Gen X’s simple lack of exposure time to the emoji features. See Figure 3 below.

Figure 3

Digital Communication Cue Interpretation: Gen Z vs. Gen X

Note. This chart summarizes/simplifies our results as a whole according to relevant categories (extreme left).

Discussion and Conclusion

Our exploration into generational interpretations of digital textual communication demonstrates a divide in how meaning is constructed and perceived across age groups. Through interviews with members of both Generation X and Generation Z, we observed that the tools of modern text-based communication carry different meanings depending on one’s digital fluency and cultural context.

Within Generation Z, we noticed there to be a deeper sensitivity to the emotional and social undertones of simple texting features. Even something as minute as a period at the end of a sentence could indicate a different tone or even a conflict. Generation Z interpreted texts figuratively and consistently attempted to read between the lines.

Contrastingly, Generation X  looked at the texts in a more literal and formal light. Punctuation was used for the purpose of grammar, and emojis were viewed straightforwardly with little subtext. Some members were aware of the subtext, but did not spot it as consistently as their Gen Z counterparts.

A key insight of our study is that, while members of both generations utilize and recognize non-verbal cues in text, Gen Z appears to have developed a more nuanced form of digital literacy. Their fluency allows them to read undertones that older generations would not as easily detect, which may allow them to engage in complex, layered conversations entirely through digital platforms, where meaning is often conveyed as much by how something is said as by what is said.

As digital communication keeps evolving, the language and meaning embedded within it follow. Our findings suggest that generational gaps in digital interpretation are not just a result of age, but additionally, cultural immersion. Many members of Generation Z grew up using computers, tablets, and phones, where communication was quite text-heavy and rich with emoji use. Generation X was not introduced to the same kind of communication until their adult lives; they are perfectly capable of adapting, but the trend for this group is to interpret digital language through a more traditional, literal lens.

References

Apgar, C. T. (2022). Wait wdym?: Examining the (mis)perception of emotional valence in text messaging across generations (B.Phil. thesis, University of Pittsburgh). University of Pittsburgh.

Busch, F. (2021). The interactional principle in digital punctuation. Discourse, Context & Media, 40, 100481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2021.100481

Danger. [@natedanger]. (2021, April 2). Rip uncle mark #family #emoji #fyp [Video]. TikTok. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8MEvPnM

Frishberg, H. (2020). Young people don’t trust anyone who uses this punctuation mark. (2020, August 24). New York Post. https://nypost.com/2020/08/24/young-people-dont-trust-anyone-who-use-this-punctuation-mark/

Irshad, S. (2024). Deciphering digital body language and the Gen-Z in new normal. Creative Saplings 2(10), 31-41. https://creativesaplings.in/index.php/1/article/view/498

Klin, C. (2016, June 12). Study: Punctuation in text messages helps replace cues found in face-to-face conversations. Binghamton University News. https://www.binghamton.edu/news/story/873/study-punctuation-in-text-messages-helps-replace-cues-found-in-face-to-face

The Council. (2025, January 31). Texting across generations: The surprising differences [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcC5_VWPf4U

Introduction and Background

Communication serves as a powerful tool to observe and interpret hidden messages. In the workplace, communication depending on various parts of one’s identity may affect roles, actions, or speaking styles in professional settings; specifically gender and level of experience influence how individuals speak and are addressed. Discourse plays a large role in language and gender studies “because many masculine and feminine aspects of speech emerge during communication” (Kizi, 2024). Social hierarchies and biases can be shown through something as simple as a different tone of voice or body movement. Our research dives into these different forms of communication by gender and level of experience of the employee being addressed.

Before conducting our own research, we searched for information that could be beneficial for us to evaluate to help make conclusions. Past research showed that women and men often use different communication styles; men use report talk, which is assertive and goal-oriented, while women use rapport talk, which places importance on connection and collaboration (Mohindra and Azhar, 2012). Relating back to the workplace, these differences can lead to how workers are valued and judged in professional settings. For example, rapport talk, typically used by women, is seen as less skilled than report talk, often used by men. Additionally, communication that stereotypically aligns with feminine traits is often overlooked in performance evaluations and leadership assessments (Chai, 2022). While we were able to find plenty of research examining communication by gender in the workplace, we were unable to find research that studied age and level of experience that influence communication in the workplace. We were curious to examine the intersection between experience and gender in the workplace. Do older, more experienced women get spoken to with more respect? Do newer female employees experience more condescending tones than their male counterparts? These are questions we were hoping to answer in our own research methods.

Methods

When conducting this study, we first formulated our hypothesis: “How do both gender and professional experience influence tone, word choice, and body language used by supervisors when addressing employees in the workplace?” We wanted to come to a conclusion regarding communication for those of different genders and different positions (hierarchy-wise) in workplaces. Our method consisted of conducting a poll via Google Form, asking our respondents the same set of occupation-based questions. Our questions began with basic intro topics: age, gender, and career experience. We then dove into more personal subjects, creating a list of yes or no questions surrounding communication within the workplace. The questions focused on how each participant is treated and addressed based on their gender. We chose to make each question very straightforward (not open-ended) to avoid any biases in the study. We chose to send this survey to four people each, two of each gender. We wanted to have an equal number of males and females in the study to make our outcome as accurate and honest as possible. We chose participants of all different ages and employment levels. Some were interns, some were in the service industry, some worked high-paying corporate jobs, and some even worked for themselves. The variation amongst every participant provided us with the most transparent results. By focusing on all different backgrounds and levels of experience, we could make a consensus about gender and many different workplaces in 21st-century America. Although our questions required a yes or no response, we focused our topics around rapport and report, displaying differences amongst age, sex, and gender.

Results and Analysis

When our participants were asked if they notice differences in communication styles between their male and female bosses, 64.3% of participants replied “YES,” while 35.7% replied “NO.” One of our participants even shared that their female bosses tend to be more sincere and considerate, while their male bosses take a condescending approach in their workplace. (Johnson, 2017) This manifests itself in the specific tone used by one’s boss. We chose to ask questions about bosses of both genders to come to a consensus with report versus rapport talk. Report and rapport contribute to how each gender takes on an authoritative position, especially in an intense work environment. The results in this pie chart were supported by one of our participants, a young female intern. At the end of our survey, she wrote, “I feel like I get spoken to too harshly by my male bosses and that they give the guys that I work with much more leeway.”

Pie chart displays responses of different experiences between bosses of each gender

In addition to communication between employees and their bosses, we also factored in age to our questionnaire (as stated above). In gender-based studies, age often gets overlooked. Incorporating age as a question in our Google Form allowed us to connect the outcome to our predominantly gender-focused study. Age and gender are without a doubt connected, especially when it comes to male and female interactions on a professional level. When asking about age, 92.9% of our participants said that their age has affected their communication at work. That is almost our entire population, leaving out 7.1%. Age has a direct correlation with work experience, so it is bound to impact communication, how one is addressed by both their peers and authoritative figures, and even how they are perceived by others.

Pie chart displays correlation between age and communication in the workplaces

Younger employees are more likely to be recipients of condescending or belittling behavior. This connects to realistic factors such as lack of experience or deeper ones such as gender. Whatever the motives may be, it is inevitable that age has a direct connection to how one communicates and is communicated with in their workplace.

Discussion and Conclusion

Based on the results of our research, we found three main patterns in communication in the workplace between males and females. The first main finding is same-gender communication leads to  relaxed and informal conversation. Our evidence illustrates how females engage in rapport talk over text and this is consistent with our survey findings because about 64.3% of our respondents reported differences in communication styles between male and female bosses. In an interview, we found that female bosses were perceived as less condescending and more considerate, male bosses were described as “more self-centered.” The second main finding is that Supervisors use more formal and respectful language when addressing experienced employees. We noticed patterns of tone shifts within text conversations. This aligns with our literature review where experience and age shapes the formality in the workplace, and a polite tone may emerge toward more seasoned women. This also connects with our survey findings because 53.8% rated a 4 or 5 (on a 5-point scale) in agreement that they were addressed differently based on age or experience. The third and final theme is long-term experienced employees are spoken to with continued respect, but less formality. We found that texts between male bosses and experienced male employees are more relaxed. This aligns with Holmes and Marra (2004), relational practice evolves over time and becomes less formal with workplace bonds, and Mohindra & Azhar (2012), men adopt direct talk (report) once relationship is established. This connects to our survey results because 92.9% said their age/experience affected communication. Qualitative responses such as “I tend to feel less comfortable with male bosses” reflect same-gender or familiar dynamics. Ultimately, with our research we focused on the differences of language, tone, and communication between men and women in the workforce. Our research highlights gender roles through a lens of language. We aimed to examine the differences in language use amongst themselves, their bosses, clients, colleagues, and especially how they are addressed by their peers. We emphasized tone, word choice, and body language as a whole. Our research question was: Are women addressed with different tones, word choices, and body language than men in the workplace? We hypothesized that gender would influence workplace communication and that women are more likely to be spoken to with different linguistic and behavioral communication when compared to their male counterparts. Our hypotheses were found to be all true as our survey results demonstrated same gender communication leading to more relaxed and information conversations, supervisors being more formal with older more experienced employees, and finally, experienced employees having less formal but still respectful conversations. Our findings imply that there is only a small amount of discrimination in the workplace through communication styles or behaviors among colleagues or bosses based on one’s gender or experience. Further, when one stays longer in one job, they attain more respect and are more lenient with their formality/conversation styles. Gender can cause more formal, serious tones and closed off body language between male bosses and female workers. This is because of gender perceptions of female competence and ability to get work done. Women have to work harder to prove their capabilities and this causes women to engage in rapport talk whereas men engage in report talk. Furthermore, our findings are important because it illustrates why men and women generally use different communication styles and how it can boost their status or job performance.

References

Mohindra, V., & Azhar, S. (2012). Gender Communication: A Comparative Analysis of Communicational Approaches of Men and Women at Workplaces. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2, 18-27.

Chai, Y. (2022). Implicit gender-biased speeches in workplace: Embedded stereotypes and effects on women’s Career Development.

Johnson, Stefanie K. “What the Science Actually Says about Gender Gaps in the Workplace.” Harvard Business Review, 17 Aug. 2017, br.org/2017/08/what-the-science-actually-says-about-gender-gaps-in-the-workplace. Accessed 05 June 2025.

Holmes, J., & Marra, M. (2004). Relational practice in the workplace: Women’s talk or gendered discourse? Language in Society, 33(3), 377–398. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404504043039

Ergasheva Nozima Khasan Kizi (2024). GENDER DIFFERENCES IN COMMUNICATION IN THE WORKPLACE. Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, Philosophy and Culture, 4 (6-1), 171-175. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.12176621

Introduction and Background

At UCLA, Bruinwalk has become a popular platform where students share their experiences, often influencing others’ decisions on which professors or classes to take. However, while these reviews may seem like casual reflections, they can also reveal underlying biases, including gender stereotypes that shape how students describe their professors. Past research has shown that female professors are often judged more on their likeability, warmth, and personality, while male professors are often judged on their authority and expertise (Mitchell & Martin, 2018). Although much of this research focuses on formal evaluations, less is known about whether these same patterns show up in online, informal reviews where students write anonymously. Our study addresses that gap by examining whether students use more emotionally charged language when reviewing female STEM professors compared to male professors on Bruinwalk. By analyzing hyper-emotional language, tone, and word choice, we aim to better understand how gendered assumptions may still shape students’ perceptions, even when reviewers are not directly asked to evaluate gender.  Our research will attempt to identify if language bias, rooted in gender stereotypes, affects how UCLA students evaluate instructors. Furthermore, we are curious to explore whether students tend to leave more emotionally charged reviews for female professors due to social norms that expect women to be more nurturing or emotionally expressive. This idea is present in a study by Basow et al. (2005), where researchers concluded that gender bias may manifest in academic contexts and that stereotypes, particularly for female professors often shape student perceptions.

Methods

Our study examined how the gender of professors influences the types of language used in student reviews, with a specific focus on hyper-emotional language. According to Hinojosa et al. (2019), hyper-emotional language includes emotionally charged adjectives, overstatements, and highly subjective expressions and we use this same definition in our survey.The analysis aimed to determine whether students are more likely to use emotionally charged positive or negative language when reviewing female STEM professors compared to male professors on Bruinwalk, a rating platform used by UCLA students. We randomly selected a total of five female and five male professors from various STEM fields. For each professor, one student review was chosen using a random number generator, resulting in ten reviews for analysis in our survey. 

Before including the reviews in our survey, we removed all gender identifying terms, such as pronouns and names to ensure anonymity and reduce any form of bias. This allowed participants to make judgements based only on the language used in each review. We then created a survey using the reviews and collected responses from 33 participants.Each participant answered three questions for each review, (1) rating the emotional level using a labeled 5-point Likert-type scale, following the methodology of Basow et al. (2006),ranging from “no emotion” to “most emotion,” (2) they identified the perceived gender of the professor based on the review, and (3) they labeled the review as either positive or negative. 

The observable communication and language aspects central to our study were word choice, tone, and emotional intensity. Reviews varied in their placement on the emotional scale, with some displaying stronger emotionality than others. Specific word choices often indicated whether a review was positive or negative, but the analysis also aimed to determine whether such language influenced perceptions of the professor’s gender. Beyond word choice, the tone of the review could shape participants’ impressions of the professor, potentially revealing underlying gender associations. This approach allowed us to compare how students interpreted emotional tone in reviews and whether certain linguistic patterns led them to associate a review with a specific gender.

The observable communication and language aspects central to our study were word choice, tone, and emotional intensity. Reviews varied in their placement on the emotional scale, with some displaying stronger emotionality than others. Specific word choices often indicated whether a review was positive or negative, but the analysis also aimed to determine whether such language influenced perceptions of the professor’s gender. Beyond word choice, the tone of the review could shape participants’ impressions of the professor, potentially revealing underlying gender associations. This approach allowed us to compare how students interpreted emotional tone in reviews and whether certain linguistic patterns led them to associate a review with a specific gender.

Results and Analysis

Emotionality vs. Gender:

Our analysis of emotionality in Bruinwalk reviews yielded results that slightly differed from our initial hypothesis. We had expected that reviewers would associate heightened emotional language more frequently with female professors. However, among reviews rated with the highest emotionality scores (4s and 5s), the distribution of gender assumptions were nearly even, as female professors were guessed 51.5% of the time and male professors at 50.9%. Within this sample, Figure one suggests that students do not appear to strongly associate either gender with more emotional reviews, at least in terms of direct emotional language. 

Figure one

Figure two

Positive and Negative vs. Gender:

In contrast, we observed more distinct gender patterns when analyzing the tone of the reviews, specifically whether they were perceived as positive or negative. As reflected in Figure two, Reviews that were interpreted as positive were associated with female professors 73% of the time, while only 26% were attributed to a male professor. Conversely, when reviews were perceived as negative, 43% guessed the professor to be female, and 56% guessed the professor to be male. Within our sample, these findings indicate a notable bias in how students associate gender with sentiment. As reflected by Figures three and four, a review written about a male professor was interpreted as positive by 93.9% of participants, yet 81.8% of them still assumed the professor was a woman. This pattern may suggest a strong link between positivity and femininity in students’ perceptions of reviews, as this trend remains fairly consistent throughout our data.

Figure three

Figure four

Guessing of Professor’s Gender: Lastly, we found that students were able to correctly guess the professor’s gender approximately 60% of the time. While slightly better than chance, this accuracy rate was lower than we had expected. Therefore, this indicates that while students may make gendered assumptions based on emotionality or tone, they are not consistent at accurately identifying a professor’s gender solely from written reviews.

Discussion and Conclusion

Our research teaches us how respondents’ perceptions of student reviews of professors and professor gender reflect gendered social and gender norms. Although this is a sample, we cannot assume that our findings are generalizable; our results suggest that the perceived sentiment by respondents in reviews affects gender perception, reinforcing gendered cultural and social norms. Women are expected to be warm, kind, and nurturing; therefore, respondents associated positive reviews with women. On the other hand, men are linked to criticism, assertiveness, and harshness, so respondents associated negative reviews with male professors. Our research suggests that gendered expectations influenced the perceived gender of the professor. Moreover, our research reveals that participants are unable to accurately identify the gender of the professor. This shows us that gender norms are not enough to assume gender. Lastly, our research suggests that emotionality within reviews is not gendered. Emotional language was used to describe female or male professors alike, and is not an indicator of professor gender.

Bruinwalk reviews are often taken into consideration by students to determine whether or not they should take a class. Student reviews are often littered with biases and have the ability to affect a professor’s reputation, even if the review is not representative of their actual teaching methods. Our research suggests that ratings may be born out of professors failing to meet students’ ideas of what their gender roles should be. In the future, we could research the intent behind students leaving reviews on Bruinwalk. Moreover, from research by JoAnn Miller and Marilyn Chamberlain (2000), we see that students have different perceptions of female and male professors and thereby different expectations. Expanding on Miller and Chamberlain’s research and using some of the data we have found in our research, we could expand on how perceptions of professors, based on their gender, shape student reviews.

Relevant Information:

In, “The Effects of Gendered Occupational Roles on Men’s and Women’s Workplace Authority,” by Jim Logan, dives deeper into the analysis of how gendered expectations can affect men and women’s authority in the workplace. After observing the emotionality of the language in BruinWalk reviews and how they seem to stem from the professor’s gender expectations, it is interesting to see how the same expectations can affect their authority.

In “Emotional Expression and Gender: How Men and Women Differ in Showing Emotions,” the article describes how the expressions of emotion are taught at a young age and how they come to shape our own expectations of who should express certain types of emotions. The article explores how we attribute certain emotions to specific genders, creating and enforcing gender roles.

References

Basow, S. A., & Montgomery, S. (2005). Student ratings and professor self-ratings of college teaching: Effects of gender and Divisional Affiliation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 18(2), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-006-9001-8 

Basow, S. A., Phelan, J. E., & Capotosto, L. (2006). Gender Patterns in College Students’ Choices of Their Best and Worst Professors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(1), 25-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00259.x (Original work published 2006)

Hinojosa, J. A., E. M. Moreno, and P. Ferré. “Affective Neurolinguistics: Towards a Framework for Reconciling Language and Emotion.” Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 35, no. 7 (June 5, 2019): 813–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1620957.

Miller, J., & Chamberlin, M. (2000). Women Are Teachers, Men Are Professors: A Study of Student Perceptions. Teaching Sociology, 28(4), 283–298. https://doi.org/10.2307/1318580

Mitchell, K. M. W., & Martin, J. (2018). Gender Bias in Student Evaluations. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(3), 648–652. Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/S104909651800001X.

Introduction and background

Breakups are rarely easy conversations, and how we communicate during them can profoundly shape the emotional outcome for both partners. Yet while much attention has been given to how relationships form, less is known about how they end and the role that communication plays in that process. In particular, gendered patterns in communication may shape how people express emotions, manage conflict, and seek closure when ending a relationship. Are women more likely to communicate openly and directly during a breakup, perhaps choosing a thoughtful conversation or in-person dialogue? And are men more likely to lean on indirect methods like ghosting or a quick text to avoid confrontations? Based on prior research and our observations, we hypothesized that these gendered tendencies would still appear among young adults today, even in casual dating and digital contexts. Prior research suggests that gendered socialization continues to shape how people manage difficult conversations. Women tend to report higher emotional expressivity and are more likely to value open communication (Ubando, 2026), while men often internalize norms that discourage emotional vulnerability (Cinardo, 2011; Drury, 1999). However, much of this work has focused on conflict within relationships rather than the moment of actually ending it. Our project seeks to fill this gap by exploring how gender influences the communication strategies on how adults choose when ending romantic relationships, especially in today’s digital landscape. Through this research, we hope to shape modern parting practices and how greater awareness of these patterns could foster healthier, more empathetic endings to relationships.

Methods

For our method, we created a Google form survey with 35 individuals between the ages of 18 and 25, and we presented our participants with four different hypothetical break-up scenarios, where each one varied by the length of the relationship. We proposed two hypothetical questions where participants would answer based on their preferred communication style if they were in a short-term relationship. Furthermore, we asked two hypothetical scenarios based on long-term relationships and what their communication style would be. The modes of communication we provided for the answers were digital versus in-person. According to “Gender and Conflict in Long-Term Romantic Relationship,” Hamlin conveys that “…another interesting component to improve future research includes examining how length of relationship impacts relational conflict and the type of conflict style exhibited in couples” (Hamlin, 2018). His assertion aligned with our method and findings that our goal in providing hypothetical scenarios was to elicit the modes of communication our participants would prefer when they were faced with relationship termination, whether it was short-term or long-term. Through this, we analyzed the observable elements of communication, whether that directness versus indirectness (ghosting, short messages, long messages, or phone calls) and their tone, whether they were more likely to be sympathetic with their partner or more apathetic. Through analyzing Ogolsky’s research he conducted on the the progression of college student romantic relationship, he found that “young adult relationships in the 21st century are deemed as overwhelmingly casual, with the termination of the relationship typically appearing at the 4th stage of dating labeled where conflict or obstacles either end or strengthen the relationship” (Ogolsky et al., 2025). This was useful for my group and me to examine more closely self-behavior and whether it was more common for a certain gender to be more indirect and less open in their communication style. Before presenting our hypothetical scenarios, we also asked our participants to reflect on their most recent relationship, specifically how it ended, who ended the relationship, and the form of communication used for the termination. We were able to compare whether their communication styles in their most recent relationship were similar or different from their responses in the hypothetical scenarios. Through using this method, we were able to analyze the observable elements of communication styles and analyze the differences and patterns across genders when it came to preferred communication styles in the modern dating world.

Results and Analysis

After conducting our survey, we found that our results were consistent with our predictions. It is a matter of fact – women are typically more emotional and expressive when it comes to relationship termination than men are. In our survey, one of the first questions participants answered was: How would you describe your communication style during the breakup? (In regards to their most recent breakup). Interestingly, 66% of women said they were direct and emotionally expressive, and only 11% reported being direct in their communication but emotionally restrained. Contrastingly, only 29% of men reported being direct and emotionally expressive, reporting much higher levels of emotional restraint at 41%. This fascinating difference truly illustrates a contrast in not only real-life communication but in personal approaches to termination. Further into our survey, we presented our participants with several example scenarios, two regarding in-person breakups and two regarding digital breakups. We asked them how they would react in that situation. Our short-term, in-person breakup scenario interestingly presented data contradicting our overarching argument. Here, we found that 29% (5 men) of male respondents would console their partner while 47% (8 men) would present neutral and indifferent body language. On the other hand, only 5 women also reported that they would console their partner, while an overwhelming 11 women said they would be neutral and indifferent. This goes against what we believed – illustrating that the men are more emotionally comforting when it comes to short term relationship termination. It is notable, however, that more men (4) reported showing discomfort in the scenario while only 2 women reported the same. When it comes to long term relationship termination in person, results differ as we had expected. Females showed the highest amount of consoling body language (16 women), while only 12 men reported the same. Men reported being neutral and different more frequently at 3 individuals, yet only 1 woman said the same. Such results are consistent with the findings of an article titled Language and Power in Politics. The article presents a graph which illustrates gender communicative structures – where women are typically empathetic, use emotional references, and use softened statements (Thomas et al., 2019). Men, on the other hand, tend to display solutions, use accusatory speech, and be angry (Thomas et al., 2019). Our results are consistent with these findings – and we can see that, overall, women tend to be more emotionally expressive on the basis of empathy and care than men.

Discussion and conclusions

Exposing levels of emotional expressivity and styles of communication when parting ways can reveal a lot about the way society has influenced us, especially in the way we succumb to traditional gender norms and stereotypes. A higher percentage of women self-reported that they would have open body language and console their partner regardless of relationship length, correlating to the higher levels of males self-reporting emotional restraint in past breakups. Displaying these patterns in extent of closure and vulnerability, both in real-life experiences from prior relationships and predicting behavior in future ones, can reveal how connected gender is to the degree of emotion presented in time of conflict.  In connection to a larger phenomenon, particularly gender norms, men are stereotypically perceived as more indirect, cold, and distant in conflict. In contrast, women are often classified as more elaborate, empathetic, and detailed. After analyzing the data, it appears to mirror underlying notions of masculinity among men as they demonstrated much higher levels of emotional restraint. This not only influences the nature of the relationship itself, but also the ways in which women and men begin to reinforce distinct emotional languages as a result of gendered expectations. After investigating the impact of social conditioning in conforming to gender stereotypes when parting ways, it is important to encourage healthier methods of termination that speak more closely to the identity and desire of the individual rather than to obey the norms that police them.

Cross-References: Watch this to uncover hear about 5 differences in communication between men and women: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAah5Lgx6o

This clip can provide guidance on closure after a breakup:

References

Cinardo, J. (2011). Male and Female differences in communicating conflict (Honors thesis, Coastal Carolina University). Digital Commons at Coastal Carolina University.

Hamlin, E. (2018). Gender and Conflict in Long-Term Romantic Relationships. Stars, 23-35. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7045&context=etd

Ogolsky, B. G., Dobson, K., Rivas‐Koehl, M., Kawas, G., & Hardesty, J. L. (2025). The progression of college student romantic relationship development: Stability and change over 10 years. Personal Relationships: Journal of the International Association for Relationship Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12590

Thomas, S., Greene, E., Brewer, C., Dela Cruz, J. (2019). Language and Power in Politics: A Gender Stereotype Game. Languaged Life. https://languagedlife.ucla.edu/language-and-identity/language-and-power-in-politics-a-gender-stereotype-game/

Ubando, M. (2016). Gender differences in intimacy, emotional expressivity, and relationship satisfaction. Pepperdine Journal of Communication Research, 4(1), Article 13. https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/pjcr/vol4/iss1/13