No matter how dissatisfied people are with the results they are getting, they rarely question their way of trying to get results. When what we are doing is not working, we do not try doing something totally different. Instead, we try harder by doing more of what seems self-evidently the right way to proceed. But when styles differ, more of the same is usually met with more of the same from the other party as well. As a result, far from solving the problem, our efforts only make things worse.
– Deborah Tannen
In 1990, Deborah Tannen published a book entitled You Just Don’t Understand regarding differences that men and women face in conversation. At the time the book was published, Tannen was a scholar and professor of linguistics at Georgetown University. Written for a popular audience, the book remained on the New York Times bestseller list for nearly four years (eight months at #1) and was subsequently translated into 30 languages. The book was met with some criticism by other experts, who felt that it overly stereotyped male and female language patterns, which Tannen characterized as “genderlects”, and didn’t fully recognize the complex, overlapping nature of communication by different genders. However, many felt that the book provided an important look at conversation patterns that create constant challenges, especially in heterosexual relationships.
The purpose of this article is not to provide a critique or book review, but to highlight key aspects from the book that (in my personal and professional experience) often result in misunderstanding and stress in relationships, but rarely are illuminated and discussed in the general public. In considering these key elements, I provide three cautions that Tannen also did in the book. One, while generalizations regarding gender differences in communication can distort the unique features of each individual, “the risk of ignoring [gender] differences is greater than the danger of naming them.” Two, attempting to explain these differences as solely a product of biology or socialization is myopic—evidence suggests that they are most likely a combination of both factors. Rather, it is most important to recognize how individuals may not be right or wrong in their styles of communication but just may have different areas of emphasis or desire. Three, communication by men and women is typically not one completely different style or another, but rather overlapping tendencies—in other words, it’s not that both groups don’t utilize styles indicated below but rather that communications tend to default one way or another.
Rapport talk vs. report talk: Throughout the book, Tannen emphasizes that women tend to communicate in ways that are focused on maintaining connections, preserving intimacy, and retaining symmetrical relationships, especially with friends and family. For many men, communications tends to be focused on relaying important information and preserving independence and “maintaining status in a hierarchical social order.” While both men and women generally desire to be loved, men tend to gravitate towards desiring a sense of respect while women often feel a strong desire for belonging and closeness. When these different style of communication happen in the same household, both men and women can feel frustrated and unheard. Men may feel that women are uninterested in hearing about potential solutions to their problems while women may feel that men are not interested in developing intimacy through regular processing of various concerns.
In taking Tannen’s point a step further, I think all of us getting regularly confused about the purpose of our conversations, and thus become frustrated when our feedback is not well received. Part of this comes from the fact that while our statements (and responses) might be reasonable, we don’t realize that we are provided an informational response in a situation where an empathetic one is desired, and vice versa. Men often grow frustrated that it seems women just want to process situations and women often are miffed that men are constantly wanting to demonstrate their solution-focused capabilities, and don’t seem to just value the intimate exchange of innermost feelings and concerns.
Asymmetry vs. symmetry: Related to the issue of report vs. rapport talk is the one of symmetry versus asymmetry. In many close, adult relationships, women tend to gravitate towards maintaining a sense of similarity, or symmetry, and often avoid situations in which they may be perceived as better than one another. In fact, Tannen uses the phrase onedownmanship to illustrate the tendency by which an individual might reject any situations in which she is depicted better or more knowledgeable than another. For those who desire a sense of symmetry in their relationships, it can feel uncomfortable to be placed (or put self) in a position whereby you are seen as superior, thus creating perceived asymmetry.
For many men who embrace a sense of competitiveness and relative status, asymmetry might not seem like a threat to their relationships, as it is simply part of a social order. Men may be inclined to not see as much of a need to maintain symmetry in their relationships while rather opting for storytelling and sharing of competence that demonstrates their capacities and abilities in various areas. Although evidence suggest that competition declines, and affiliation increases, as men get older, it appears that men remain more comfortable with the language of asymmetry while women often strive towards a closeness that is grounded in the sharing of similarities.
Messages vs. metamessages: Throughout the book, Tannen borrows from the terminology of Gregory Bateson in distinguishing between the message and metamessage of a particular communication. The message is “the obvious meaning of the act” while the metamessage involves deeper aspects about the relationship, attitudes about what is being said or done, and feelings about the people involved. For example, if someone is feeling upset, and I come over and pat them on the back, the message is that I am showing concern. But depending on the situation and person, the metamessage might be that the person being patted needs to be taken care of, and I am the caregiver who should do it.
Men and women both engage in messages and metamessages on a frequent basis. The key point to consider is that these messages might be received differently even when the act is the same, and oftentimes this is not understood or recognized. In the simple example provided above, one individual might regard this act of sympathy in a positive manner while another might perceive this in a condescending way. This can be especially true for those who strive toward a sense of independence versus those who most desire a sense of closeness or even dependence. Very often conflict occurs when metamessages don’t honor the ideal self of the individual, thus confusing the person with good intentions and frustrating the one that feels undermined.
High Considerateness (HC) vs. High Involvement (HI): Tannen spends a fair amount of time on the issue of interruptions and differences that may exist between genders and cultures. She posits that much of this exists because individuals either tend towards being considerate of each other to not impose or interrupt in conversation while others prioritize being involved in conversations. Those with an HC style often expect and offer longer pauses and are more tolerant of silence while those with HI style tend to be very focused with interjecting at various times in order to keep the conversation flowing and devoid of silence. Unfortunately, HC speakers tend to interpret interruption as though the “floor” is being taken away from them while HI speakers may often feel that being overly deferential to each person speaking one at a time doesn’t lead to a comfortable, warm conversation.
When similar styles of speakers are part of a conversation, evidence suggests that those involved generally feel a mutual sense of comfort and camaraderie, and for HI speakers, interruptions are not perceived in a negative way nor is (reasonable) silence for HC speakers. But when HC and HI speakers are combined, this is when conflict and hurt feelings can originate, and people feel disconnected in conversation when differences in style are not recognized, and adjustments aren’t made to facilitate involvement of all involved regardless of style.
Conflict vs. connection: Tannen states the following: “To most women, conflict is a threat to connection, to be avoided at all costs. Disputes are preferably settled without direct confrontation. But to many men, conflict is a necessary means by which status is negotiated, so it is to be accepted and may even be sought, embraced, and enjoyed.” In situations where this is true, men may find themselves frustrated that women are unwilling to confront situations that are fraught with obvious problems, preferring to “maintain the peace” through indirect means of resolution or avoidance. Women can be frustrated that men seem to create conflict where it is not necessary, and repeatedly seek to resolve a situation that is not resolvable.
In my experience, the source of conflict is often not the issue at play, but rather where the priority lies, regardless of gender. For some, when resolution of conflict, and a restatement of order, is most paramount, then failure to address an area of disagreement seems both misguided and ineffective. But for those most focused on maintaining a sense of peace, intimacy, and even safety, then conflict may seem like the biggest threat that exists. Without understanding the core values at play in a given conversation, it is unlikely that a conversation will be productive or restorative.
Lecturing vs. listening: It has long been a stereotype that women talk more than men, but Tannen makes the case that this tendency isn’t universally generalizable, but rather depends on various factors, such as public versus private setting, or who is part of the conversation. In public, when both men and women are present, there appears to be a tendency for men to share much more about their experiences, interests, opinions, and even story and joke-telling while women tend to listen and ask questions more (this trend doesn’t appear to remain when only women are in public together). But in private, there tends to be a more prolific sharing of thoughts, ideas, and considerations when females are together than when men are with each other. In general, it appears that women tend to adapt their style of communication when men are around while this is not the case for men when women are around. Once again, it appears that men tend to gravitate towards report-talk in most situations while women engage in rapport-talk with other women, and take a more deferential style when with other men in public.
Although there are many other areas of the book that I could have highlighted, I feel that these are some of the most important considerations. Again, I reiterate my original three cautions at the beginning of this article, and emphasize that sometimes, depending on personality, experiences, and circumstances, men and women may gravitate towards the opposite tendencies noted here. What’s important is that we all recognize the tendencies we use, whatever they are. I encourage anyone reading this to check out the book, and come to their own conclusions about the research and Tannen’s own ideas.
But beyond all the themes noted, I think there are two overarching notions that are most important for all to consider. One, the issue of communication is like a number of areas in our lives. They are supremely important for our health and happiness, and yet we prioritize growth in them little or not at all. Said another way, we spend thousands of hours engaged in thinking and acting on all sorts of interests and responsibilities, but spend little if any time focused on gaining knowledge, understanding, and empathy when it comes to communication. As the quote said at the top of this article, “as a result, far from solving the problem, our efforts only make things worse.”
Relatedly, because we spend so little time addressing communication differences, we also don’t recognize the opportunities to improve our lives through learning to be more flexible, and striving to be more effective, when we speak with each other, especially our loved ones. I say this even as a psychologist who is well aware of the tremendous ways communication can impact our lives. Even in situations where communication isn’t a key factor in divorce, separation, estrangement, abuse, or poor health (and every negative outcome in between), almost all of us, to varying degrees, live in perpetual situations of dissatisfaction and disappointment without recognizing that there are accessible ways to significantly improve the contentment and joy in our relationships. We go about doing things the same ways and expect different results that never happen, even when there is good intention and great love. While it is unlikely that most of us will dramatically alter the communication styles we use as adults, we all have an ability to be flexible in how and when we interact if we are serious about understanding ourselves and each other better. And as parents, we all have the opportunity to help our children adapt an improved understanding and effectiveness in their interactions. It might turn out to be one of the most transformative things we do in our homes, communities, and world.