Brooke Abess, Ria Bagga, Jin Kwak, Jennifer Montes, Michelle Parada

In multilingual communities, language choice reflects the dynamic relationship between power and belonging. This can be seen in Spanish-speaking communities in Los Angeles, where everyday speech becomes a site for reinforcing and negotiating social hierarchies. This study analyzes how power relations and cultural norms shape language use, specifically focusing on code-switching between Spanish and English across public and private settings. Using a mixed-methods approach of surveys, participant observation, and informal interviews, we examined how speakers navigate linguistic expectations in different settings and what factors contribute to this shift. Our findings show that while Spanish is a central part of home and social settings, English dominates institutional spaces such as work and schools reflecting a broader structure of authority. While most of the participants generally viewed mixed speech positively, there was stigma present in the answers of others, especially around ideas of what is considered, “proper” Spanish. These results suggest that language practices are not solely shaped by external institutional pressures but also by internal community norms.

Key Words: Spanish, multilingual, power dynamics, Los Angeles, community

[expander_maker id=”1″ more=”Read more” less=”Read less”]

Introduction & Background

Language is a powerful tool of communication that is constantly negotiating between
power, identity, social norms, and belonging. Not only does the world around us shape how we
communicate, but so do our personal identities and the communities we belong to. Because of
this, our everyday language practices and uses signal the broader social hierarchies and cultural
norms to which we adhere. To better understand this phenomenon, we wanted to look at a
multilingual community that practices language maintenance and code-switching, in the hopes of
finding patterns between language use and social hierarchies. We decided to focus on the
Spanish-speaking community of Los Angeles, where the language has deep historical roots; in
fact Los Angeles County has the largest Spanish-speaking population in the United States (Los
Angeles Almanac, n.d.). Prior research on Spanish language maintenance and shifts in the United
States shows generational patterns where first-generation immigrants tend to maintain the use of
Spanish, while second-generation speakers increasingly shift towards the use of English. This is
especially true for public and professional spaces (Michnowicz et al., 2023).
In this study we hope to answer this question by studying code-switching between
English and Spanish in public and private spaces. Code-switching is not treated here as random
mixing of languages, but as a socially meaningful practice that reflects audience, context,
institutional expectations, and perceived legitimacy. We also consider how heritage and
Indigenous languages are maintained, marginalized, or erased within Spanish-speaking
communities. Drawing on a raciolinguistic perspective (Phuong, 2024), we look at language and
race as co-constructed through dominant listening practices and institutional norms. Going in, we
hypothesize that in communities where multilingualism is actively accepted and supported,
speakers are more likely to maintain and use Spanish and other heritage languages instead of
defaulting to English. This connects to the ways in which social hierarchies are either reinforced
or challenged, which is the central focus behind our research question: How do power relations
and cultural norms shape multilingual practices and contribute to Spanish language maintenance
or shift among Spanish-speaking communities in Los Angeles? Our findings suggest that these
dynamics operate not only through institutional preference for English, but also through internal
community expectations about what forms of Spanish or mixed speech are considered legitimate

Methods

To gather data, we used a mixed-methods approach including surveys, participant
observation, and informal interviews. Our surveys were developed to measure comfort speaking
English and Spanish across different contexts, sources of linguistic pressure, and language
modification through likert-scale questions, multiple-choice responses, and open-ended prompts
to gather both quantitative and qualitative data. For the Spanglish-focused survey, conceptually
related Likert-scale items were also combined into a simple index to capture overall attitudes
toward the legitimacy of Spanglish. Participant observation was conducted through informal
conversations within family and community contexts, paying close attention to code-switching
patterns and language or accent modification and shifts. Semi-structured interviews also allowed
participants to describe moments when they changed their language use due to perceived power
dynamics, safety concerns, or social expectations. This combination of methods allowed us to
analyze multilingual practices from multiple angles, providing data on larger patterns and
backing it up with our observations and inquiries

Results & Data Analysis

After our data collection, we cross-analyzed results from each part of our research. Our
survey responses provide us with overarching patterns on a quantitative level, while our
observations and interviews back up our findings and may help to make sense of these patterns.
Most notably, we observed patterns of Spanish being the primary language used in home and
family spaces, whereas English was predominantly used in school, work, and government
settings (Figure 1). This supports the notion that setting and institutional authority influences
language use and can either support or hinder the use of a non-English language.

Figure 1 – Language Use by Context

Note. Results collected from a checkbox matrix in the study’s survey.

Another notable aspect of our results was the data on Spanish proficiency and judgement
around language use. As shown in Figure 2, survey participants generally rated their Spanish
speaking and listening proficiency higher than their Spanish reading and writing proficiency.
Along with our data on Spanish being used frequently in private settings, these trends suggest
that Spanish is typically learned more through practice than formal education. Furthermore,
Figures 3 and 4 show that people have tended to feel more judged for their Spanish use, perhaps
due to a lack of comfort with Spanish proficiency.

Figure 2 – Language Proficiency

Figure 3 – Accent & Perception: English

Figure 4 – Accent & Perception: Spanish

Along similar lines, we looked a bit further into the use of Spanglish, a linguistic hybrid of Spanish and English together. Survey responses suggest that Spanglish is widely understood as an important linguistic resource, although respondents remain cautious about its use in professional settings (Figure 5). Once again, this demonstrates the difference in linguistic approaches to “professional” settings and official situations, which introduce society’s hierarchical pressures.

Figure 5 – Spanglish

Survey responses suggest that many participants view Spanglish as meaningful in everyday communication, particularly for identity, emotional expression, and belonging, even while remaining cautious about its use in professional settings. The initial survey responses showed strong but context-dependent attitudes toward Spanglish; we developed a second survey to examine how speakers assess its legitimacy, usefulness, and social perception.

To move beyond individual survey responses, we created two simple indices using Likert-scale items. The first, a Spanglish Legitimacy Index, combined five questions measuring whether respondents viewed mixed speech as culturally meaningful, socially useful, legitimate, emotionally expressive, and connected to belonging. Each response was coded on a scale of 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating more positive attitudes toward Spanglish. The average score across responses was 3.66 out of 5, suggesting that respondents generally viewed Spanglish positively.

Figure 6 – Spanglish – Data A

Legitimacy Component	Mean
Cultural Identity	4.00
Social usefulness	3.57
Legitimacy	3.64
Emotional Expression	3.57
Belonging	3.50
Overall Index	3.66

Note. Means calculated from five Likert-scale survey items (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly
agree). Higher scores indicate more positive attitudes toward Spanglish. For interpretation,
mean scores closer to 1 indicate low agreement, scores near 3 indicate mixed or neutral
attitudes, and scores closer to 5 indicate strong agreement. Following this scale, values above
roughly 3.5 suggest generally positive attitudes, while values between 2 and 3.4 indicate more
moderate or mixed responses.

The strongest agreement appeared in the area of cultural identity, suggesting that
respondents understand Spanglish less as random linguistic mixing and more as a meaningful
marker of lived bilingual experience. Slightly lower scores in belonging and usefulness suggest
that while respondents generally value Spanglish, its acceptance remains shaped by context,
especially where social expectations or institutional norms influence language choice.
To examine whether this positive valuation coexists with linguistic pressure, we also
created a second index focused on stigma and normative expectations surrounding language use.
This Spanglish Stigma Index combined items measuring whether speaking Spanglish can make
someone seem less educated, whether proper Spanish is seen as important within the community,
and whether respondents had experienced criticism from Spanish speakers

Figure 7 – Spanglish – Data B

Stigma Component	Mean
Speaking Spanglish can seem less educated	2.86
Proper Spanish matters in the community	3.29
Criticism from Spanish speakers	2.00
Overall Stigma Index	2.72

The overall stigma score of 2.72 falls within the moderate range, suggesting that although
strong stigma was not dominant across responses, respondents still reported noticeable pressure
around language correction and ideas of proper Spanish. In particular, the relatively higher score
for “proper Spanish matters” indicates that ideas of linguistic legitimacy continue to circulate
within the community itself, not only through outside institutions. Taken together, these two
indices show that positive identification with Spanglish coexists with lingering expectations
about when and how mixed speech is socially acceptable.

Discussion & Conclusion

The findings of our study show notable patterns and correlations that support our hypothesis. Overall, we found evidence that English indexes professionality, as it is the preferred language used in more institutional and professional settings. This shows how power hierarchies, particularly those in the United States that show preference to English speakers, maintain influence and control over which language is deemed socially acceptable to use in particular settings. Although English is the official language of the US, and therefore Los Angeles, this evidence still suggests that there is a general lack of support and acceptance of multilingualism.

In the context of our collected data (Fig. 1-4) and associated research, we suggest that a lack of institutional support for multilingualism and the Spanish language denies speakers opportunities to build proficiency, leading them to learn informally in private spaces, often through family and friends. This is perhaps the reason that many speakers feel more judged for their Spanish speaking abilities than English (Fig. 3-4), as they have not been formally taught Spanish as they were with English in school.

At the same time, the Spanglish survey shows that legitimacy is not absolute. Although respondents scored positively overall on the Spanglish Legitimacy Index (3.66), the Spanglish Stigma Index (2.72) indicates that moderate pressure on language norms remains. This suggests that language legitimacy operates unevenly: speakers may personally value Spanglish while still recognizing that certain forms of mixed speech can be judged negatively, especially in contexts where professionalism, education, or ideas of proper Spanish are emphasized. The relatively higher stigma score around “proper Spanish matters” further suggests that these pressures do not come only from institutions, but also circulate within the community itself. In this way,
Spanglish does not simply resist power structures; it also reveals how speakers continuously negotiate them in everyday interaction.

Nevertheless, Spanish remains a very important part of people’s lives, as it can be used as a tool to strengthen family ties, friendships, and community membership. Language use now develops in the context of these multicultural communities, which is where Spanglish enters the discussion as a tool to fuse together identity and perspectives while also reflecting one’s identity and multicultural group membership.

References

Phuong, J., Cioè-Peña, M., & Chinchilla, A. (2024). Raciolinguistics. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.1001

Michnowicz, J., Trawick, S., & Ronquest, R. (2023). Spanish language maintenance and shift in a newly-forming community in the Southeastern United States: Insights from a large-class survey: Hispanic Studies Review 7(2). https://hispanicstudiesreview.cofc.edu/article/77601-spanish-language-maintenance-and-shift-in-a-newly-forming-community-in-the-southeastern-united-states-insights-from-a-large-class-survey Links to an external site.

Los Angeles Almanac.(n.d.). The Spanish language in Los Angeles County, California. https://www.laalmanac.com/population/po48s.php

Koskinen, Jeanette, and Josefine Karlsson. “Teachers as Linguistic Role Models: Language Teaching in Multilingual ECEC Settings.” Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, vol. 14, no. 2, 2025, pp. 140–68, https://doi.org/10.58955/jecer.147607.

Cenoz, J. (2013). Defining Multilingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(Mar), 3–18

Appendix

Interviewer: Do you feel pressure to speak English in certain public spaces?Participant A:“Yes, especially at work. Even if everyone understands Spanish, English feels more official. Like it makes you look more educated.”Interviewer: What about at home?Participant A:“At home it’s the opposite. If I spoke only English with my parents it would feel distant.”

Observation Context: Informal family gathering. Conversation shifts fluidly between Spanish and English. Spanish is used for storytelling and emotional expression. English appears during references to work or academic topics. No visible hesitation in switching.Observation Context: Workplace interactionSpanish-speaking employees initially converse in Spanish. When a supervisor enters, conversation shifts entirely to English. The tone becomes more formal. Code-switching decreases.

Sample Survey Questions

[/expander_maker]

Kayla Rezazadh, Elina Ghaem Maghami, Chloe Zhao, and Lina Muller

Parting ways is rarely ever easy, but how we decide to terminate a romantic relationship can speak volumes about who we are, how we process our emotions, and the ways in which gender norms have influenced us. In times of heartbreak, some people might pick up the phone and dial their number, or even write out a lengthy text message. Others may keep it brief, or even vanish without a word. In this project, we wished to investigate how men and women initiate and navigate romantic endings both in person and in the digital world. We sent out a survey that asked participants ages 18-25 about their past experiences breaking up and being broken up with, as well as hypothetical scenarios on how they would handle the termination of short-term and long-term relationships. By analyzing the method of communication, followed by body language, tone, and level of directness, we were able to uncover differences in the extent of emotional expression between young men and women. 

[expander_maker id=”1″ more=”Read more” less=”Read less”]

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

[/expander_maker]

Justine Fisch, Sarah Barsamian, Joselyne Hernandez, Yarina Andrade, Lesly Cabrera

What can a single review say about a professor or, more importantly, what can it imply? Today, anonymous student reviews play an increasingly crucial role in shaping a professor’s reputation, especially on platforms like Bruinwalk. Beneath the surface of these brief comments, however, lies a deeper question: are these evaluations truly about performance, or do they highlight gendered assumptions students unconsciously carry? Our study examined how the emotional tone and perceived sentiment of Bruinwalk reviews shape students’ assumptions about a professor’s gender. We analyzed ten anonymized reviews (five for female STEM professors, five for male) and surveyed 33 participants, asking them to rate emotional language, identify review sentiment, and guess the professor’s gender. Contrary to our hypothesis, highly emotional reviews were not overwhelmingly associated with female professors. However, positive reviews were disproportionately perceived to be written about female professors, revealing a strong bias linking positivity with femininity. While participants guessed professor gender with only 60% accuracy, their assumptions consistently reflected typical social expectations. These findings suggest that even when gendered language isn’t present, the perception of gender still shapes how we interpret emotion, authority, and professional competence in academic settings.

[expander_maker id=”1″ more=”Read more” less=”Read less”]

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.

[/expander_maker]

Mariam Arafa, Bianca Richmond, Olivia Rubin, Sydney Steinger

In the workplace, a new female intern might wonder, Why does my male boss communicate with me so differently compared to my male coworkers? Our research explores this question. Communication in the workplace is not just exchanging information; rather, it reveals social hierarchies, implicit bias, and power and gender dynamics. This study focuses on how gender and professional experience influence communication in the workplace. Working off existing literature, we examine how men often use “report talk”, assertive and task-oriented communication, and women use “rapport talk”, communication based on connection and emotions. While we were able to find research on gendered communication patterns, studies were limited in addressing how age and experience alter these patterns. To bridge this gap, we conducted a survey and interviews targeting professionals of various genders, industries, and levels of experience. Our results defend three patterns: (1) same gender communication is usually more relaxed and informal; (2) supervisors speak more formally and respectfully when addressing more experienced employees; and (3) long-term employees that have an established relationship with their boss are addressed with continued respectful but less formal communication over time. Our study provides evidence that it is not just gender that shapes workplace communication, but also experience, which subtly impacts hierarchies and norms in professional interactions within the workplace.

[expander_maker id=”1″ more=”Read more” less=”Read less”]

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

[/expander_maker]

Jura Glennie, Ryan Gorji, Mikaela Edwards, Zahra Umar, Lizett Hernandez

Have you ever received a text that just said “okay.” and spent the next hour wondering if someone is mad at you or if you’re just being too Gen Z about it? These kinds of reactions highlight how digital communication is often interpreted through generational lenses that can drastically shift meaning and connection in digital conversations. In this study, we investigate how generational differences affect the interpretation and use of digital features in text-based interactions. The research examines how Generation X (born 1965-1980) and Generation Z (born 1997-2012) understand and express digital body language through the use of punctuation, capitalization, emojis, and acronyms. We hypothesize that Gen Z will use more expressive forms of digital body language while Gen X will favor more minimal or formal styles, since they did not grow up in the digital age. This study focuses on how these generational groups perceive emotions, the reasoning behind selected features, and relationship-based decisions in digital communication. Previous research shows that nonverbal cues were created and popularized by younger generations, making them more recognizable to Gen Z, which aligns with our study’s findings. The takeaways from our results suggest that while digital features are identifiable amongst these age groups, their generational differences shape their communication style and interpretations.

[expander_maker id=”1″ more=”Read more” less=”Read less”]

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

[/expander_maker]