Social Media’s Influence on Gendered Interpersonal Communication: Insights from Jordan

Reviewers’ comments

Our response

Reviewer 1:

Allow me to say that I appreciate your work on investigating the gendered communication practices of Jordanians through interpersonal technology. I believe this work is needed for us to better understand how gendered communication is (or is not) changing and related factors. In doing so, we can learn how to adapt our current global communication practices to improve our interpersonal relationships.

I think genderlect theory was an appropriate framework for the study. My comments will suggest a broadening of this framework to account for the roles of technology and globalization in the study's defined context. I also provide a few suggestions to help align the study's methodology with its theoretical structure. I think clarity and explicitness are the two key elements that the manuscript should focus on. In doing so, I think the manuscript can address some notable gaps (particularly in the methodology section).

The discussion section is quite interesting. I wonder if there are specific examples that can help us clearly imagine how current relationships would adapt to ever-increasing female empowerment.  I think readers are curious to know more about how you envision the future.

Below are my additional comments. Thank you for doing this important work.

Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript investigating gendered communication practices among Jordanians. We appreciate your recognition of the relevance of this work and your insights into the framework and methodology.

Literature review

General comment 1: At the onset, I think it would be helpful to note that the application of Genderlect Theory relies on cultural conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Some conceptions can be observed across cultures (Maybe Hofstede [and Hofstede] would be helpful here). In this way, the authors should note that Genderlect Theory could very well apply beyond western notions and practices.

Thank you for your comment. We added what you requested

General comment 2: Spacing and indentation appears inconsistent. The author may not be responsible for the formatting.

We modified spacing and indentation

General comment 3: Since this section places a heavy emphasis on the use of interpersonal communication technology (ICT), I wonder if Ledbetter’s summary on ICTs and technological affordance would serve a summative role in this literature review. I think this would account for the difference between developer-intended and developer-unintended social media use in interpersonal contexts; Unintended uses are quite representative of human social needs and goals. Technology changes how we communicate; How we communicate changes technology.

Yes, we added what you requested. We rewrote the entire section

Line 140: I am curious to know how assertion is practiced. What would an example of assertion look like?

An example was added as suggested

Lines 142-143: Is indirect communication a practice of high-context communication, feminine communication, or both? If it is mostly feminine practice, then it might be helpful to note that direct communication is a matter of masculine communication. Also, how might one engage in indirect but assertive communication (as per line 140)?

We added what you requested

Lines 151-162: Given the definition of effective interpersonal communication (as per line 129), would it be worthwhile to make reference to communication’s role in the co-creation of relationships, messages, and meaning?

We did, the entire section was revised

Line 155: I am unsure of the term “alternate” here. This term might imply that that online communication is “lesser” than face-to-face communication to some readers. Other readers might view the term as a reference to an environment where subversive or counter public rhetoric is shared. I do not gain the sense that these implications fit your narrative (at least in the literature review).

It is clear now

Line 227: I am unsure what 50% negative influence means.

We amended it

Lines 238 – 248: Here, I think it would be useful to explain how these consequences relate to genderlect theory.

We did

Line 249 – 255: These impacts are vague. I think it is fair to argue that the current study seeks to add additional context via genderlect theory.

We wrote the section and clarified the impacts.

Methodology

General comment 1: Did the study receive approval from an ethics board? If so, what was the ethics board?

General comment 2: I think it would be helpful to the reader if the quantitative and qualitative methods are explained in separate sections.

General comment 3: The qualitative focus groups appear to take an ethnographic approach. Is that correct? If so, it might be useful to mention that.

Line 266-268: How many participants initially participated? Were any participants excluded?

Line 284: I think it would be helpful to note that the scale is from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) here so that the mean scores are more easily interpreted by the reader.

Yes, the study received approval and we uploaded a copy of the approval to the portal.

The entire section was rewritten and we divided it into quantitative and qualitative methods as requested.

Results section: There is much conversation about how one should compare two groups where each group n < 30. Since I believe there is a contingent of readers that would be satisfied with a t-test here given a little more context about the data’s distribution, I will argue that it would be helpful for readers in their interpretation of the results if skew and kurtosis are included in your report.

Results section: Since each variable was measured via multiple items, I think it would be useful to note if the items for each variable are reliable (as per Cronbach’s alpha).

The normality test was conducted and the results are presented in the paper.

We also conducted Cronbach’s Alpha and reported the result as well.

Results section (survey): I am unsure if we can say that a similarity of self-reported perspectives directly correlates to similar practiced communication strategies at this point of my reading experience. I think my uncertainty links back to the “report” vs. “rapport” distinction. Prior to the discussion section, how can we clearly see the difference between “report” and “rapport” practices in the survey results? What should we look for here? I can make inferences here, but I think an explanation of how the survey items directly tie to these concepts would be useful in the methods section.

I recommend that the qualitative results be placed in its own section. I find that this section is very helpful in explaining the quantitative results. But I would then reserve the implications of these results in its own discussion section.

Yes, we modified the methods section established how questionnaire items relate to report vs. rapport. We also explained the relationship in the results section

We believe this section is presented in a coherent manner and supported by quotations from the interviews. However, we did separate them into two sections

Discussion section

General comment 1: I would include a separate limitations section. I do not think the small sample size cannot be overlooked.

General comment 2: Also, is there a possibility that the survey or focus group participants were engaging in satisficing behavior? I wonder if the 10 females who volunteered for the qualitative study were females who were more likely to be candid about their experiences and practices than the average female.

General comment 3: Also, it appears that the results do need a fair bit of interpretation. Is there a way that we can more directly observe the interpreted results (perhaps a content analysis of messaging strategies)?

Line 417: I appreciate you mentioning that Jordanian internet users do not live in a Jordanian vacuum. Would it then be worthwhile to note that an additional study should be called for to further distinguish between intracultural ICT effects and intercultural ICT effects?

Line 498: Perhaps it is better to say that social media tends to facilitate a greater level of neutrality.

 Done

We added it to the limitations

More were added to the discussion and results sections but a content analysis of messaging strategies will take time and space and the paper is already 9000 words

Done

Done

Reviewer’s comments

Our response

The paper is very interesting and reader friendly, yet, research methodology needs to be improved. It is very broad to say that random sampling is used. How do they select the sample is not clear? Out of 4.90 million users, why only 50 participants are reached needs to be explained. Which type of random sampling; needs  to be specified and explained?

Why not equal number of male and female participants? Why a t-test for such a small sample? It seems that this study is non-parametric and hence tests should be selected in line with the sample size. In my opinion these are significant issues and perhaps Mann Whitney U test is more suitable. Otherwise my suggestion is to increase the sample size and proceed with t-test.

The entire methodology section was rewritten and we clarified how the sampling was done.

The analysis was done by a statistician and we consulted him again with the appropriateness of the t-test, he confirmed that this sample size is adequate for conducting a t-test, ensuring that the analysis could detect trends and differences in gendered communication patterns without the need for a Mann-Whitney test. Here is a reference that supports this conclusion:

Vrbin, C. M. (2022). Parametric or nonparametric statistical tests: Considerations when choosing the most appropriate option for your data. Cytopathology, 33(6), 663-667.

We also conducted a normality test and a reliability test and included the results in the paper.  The findings of the normality test suggest that the score distribution is relatively symmetrical and follows a bell-shaped curve, meeting the assumptions required for parametric tests. The normality of the data enhances the reliability of the statistical results from subsequent analyses, such as the t-test, which can be confidently applied since the underlying data satisfy these criteria.

However, if the reviewer insists, we can send the dataset to another statistician to conduct a Mann Whitney U test.

Reviewer’s comments

Response

One major spot I need to see clarification in is in the conflation of sex and gender in this piece. The authors use a theory of gender to underpin their research questions and discussions of the findings, but refer to their research participants as “male” and “female” throughout. Consistency in whether this is a research study about sex differences or about gender differences (or explanation as to why both are being used) would greatly improve the overall through-line/consistency throughout the paper.

Our study is indeed focused on exploring gender differences rather than biological sex differences. Therefore, we will adjust the language throughout the manuscript to consistently refer to participants as "men" and "women" instead of "male" and "female." This change aims to align our terminology with the theoretical framework underpinning our research.

We also added this: Here, it should be noted that in this study, we use the terms 'men' and 'women' based on how participants identify themselves. It is crucial to understand that in Jor-danian culture, unmarried females are often called 'girls' until they get married. This reflects societal norms that link adulthood and womanhood with marriage. This dis-tinction is particularly important in conservative Jordanian society, where premarital relationships are generally unaccepted. As a result, many unmarried females are culturally viewed as 'girls.' This understanding helps clarify our use of terminology throughout the paper.

Related, there are some claims about societies being more masculine or feminine that could use some more explanation especially (p.3) in mentioning that Sweden and the Netherlands are “more feminine”. I’m not sure what this means - are there more rights/respect/etc for women in these countries than elsewhere? Or is it something about the countries that are more feminine in nature? Either meaning needs further explanation.

Upon reflection, we agree that the references to specific countries might lead to ambiguity without sufficient context. To address this concern, we will remove the specific mention of Sweden and the Netherlands from the text. Instead, we will provide an explanation of what it means for a culture to be considered "more feminine." This will include a discussion of characteristics such as communication styles that prioritize cooperation, emotional expressiveness, and relational harmony, as well as the societal implications of these traits, such as a greater emphasis on rights and respect for individuals.

The paper could also benefit from further discussion of the ‘genderlect theory’ and how it has been used in other academic studies before now. Especially as the original theory they cite (p.2) seems to have been published in non-academic presses - how has it been taken up in the academy? What previous research/experiments/etc have been done to discuss or apply the theory in academic work? Conversely, the authors could explain why it is important to bring this work from popular presses  into the academy, what does it add, how does it interact with other existing theories, why should academics take it up?

Genderlect theory has indeed been established in academic discourse, particularly within communication studies. Numerous studies have adopted this theory to analyze and interpret the differences in communication styles between men and women.

For example:

Natano, N., Bayangos, E., & Feliciano, I. (2024) conducted a study titled "A Genderlect View of Communication Patterns of Male and Female Students in a Higher Education Institution" published in Education Review.

Sadia, S., Asgher, M., & Alam, M. (2021) applied the theory in their research "A Study Of Conversation Traits In Punjabi Family Setting" in the Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry.

Ahmad, B., Khan, N. H., & Ullah, I. (2024) explored socio-linguistic features in their work "A Corpus-Based Comparative Analysis of Socio-Linguistic Features in the Genderlect of American and Pakistani English TV Talk Shows" in the Journal of Asian Development Studies.

Additionally, genderlect theory is discussed in well-known academic texts, such as “A First Look At Communication Theory” edited by Andrew Ledbetter (2019), further establishing its scholarly foundation.

The literature review section on social media / social networking sites is overall well done, but some of the previous studies referred to (p.6) could also be contextualized - what is important about the studies from 2016, for example, that is still relevant to the type of internet culture we have almost 10 years later? For an international audience, it would also be good to situate place names like Abjua (p.6), Batna (p.12) within a country or wider region.

Thank you for your feedback on the literature review section. We have replaced some previous studies with more recent research to ensure relevancy to today’s internet culture. Additionally, we have provided contextual information for place names, such as Abuja and Batna, to situate them within their respective countries and regions for clarity, especially for our international audience.

This paper benefits from the mixed methods approach, but would greatly benefit from being more specific in two areas: who the research participants were, and what was being measured. Mainly, it is unclear when the authors are discussing a change in online communication vs. a change in offline communication due to changes in online conversation. Also, the methodology appears to measure participants’ perceptions/observations of their own communication habits - which is fine, but the discussion does not adequately acknowledge this when it comes to detailing changes/differences in communication, rather than self-perception of communication. It is a subtle difference, but not adequately addressing it dilutes the impact/authority of the argument (p.8, for example). It would also be helpful to provide information about the age of participants.

Thank you for your feedback on our paper. We have acknowledged the self-reporting nature of the data collection in the limitations section, which highlights the reliance on participants’ perceptions of their communication habits. Additionally, we have included the age range of participants in the methodology section to provide clarity on the demographic characteristics of our sample.

If the focus group participants were drawn from the participants who filled out the surveys / or whether the focus group participants were chosen and then filled out the surveys / or whether the two groups of participants were fully different (p.8, p.9 seem to contradict each other)

How many focus groups there were, what the gender makeup of the focus groups were (Were they split by gender? Were they mixed groups? Did that or could that have had an impact on the discussion/data gained from the focus groups?)

What was the age range of the participants?

What was measured and therefore why the statistical methods were used (see quant results section)

We have already provided the requested information within the manuscript. Specifically, we have indicated that the focus group discussions included 20 participants, with an equal split of 10 men and 10 women, who were selected randomly. In contrast, the participants for the questionnaires (n=50) were self-selected online. We have also included the age ranges of both groups in the methodology section. Additionally, we clarify that our qualitative analysis does not involve statistical methods, as it focuses on thematic insights derived from the discussions.

This is another spot where further clarity as to what in a verbal exchange is being measured, or whether the surveys measure perceptions of verbal exchanges, for example. Perhaps the authors could show an example question here and use that to explain how many respondents answered what, how that translates into the scores detailed in the table.

The statistics spend a lot of time detailing their ‘significance’ etc, which is great, but it is much less impactful when what was actually being measured isn’t detailed in the same depth. For example, the table on p.9 has detailed information for skewness and kurtosis, but does not explain what the survey data is, or what skew or kurtosis would mean for this data. Similarly, the table on p.10 includes mean & std deviation, but does not explain what these scores mean/communicate for the type of data collected.

Thank you for your feedback regarding the quantitative results section. We would like to clarify that we included the complete survey in the appendix, specifying which items correspond to which types of communication. This information allows the reader to understand what was measured and how the scores were derived.

While we appreciate the suggestion to include examples of specific survey questions in the main text, we believe that the appendix provides sufficient detail without overwhelming the results section. We added some items in the qualitative results section. Regarding the statistical analysis, we discussed the outcomes in the discussion section, linking them back to the intended research questions and existing literature, ensuring that the relevance of the data is clear.

We aimed to balance the statistical details with interpretive context, and we believe that the current structure effectively communicates our findings.

Discussion/Limitations/Conclusion:

The discussion overall is interesting, but would benefit significantly from the above changes to the methodology section to allow readers to better understand what the results are that are being discussed, and how they were acquired. For example, what does a “high score” mean? (p.11). The discussion of the focus group findings would again, benefit from more details on how many focus groups there were, what the gender makeup was, etc. (p.11)

The authors have brought up excellent points in the limitations section. I would love to see an expansion of the discussion of reliance on self-reported data - this could even be earlier in the article, in the methodology or findings sections.

The conclusion sums up the claims in the article nicely, though I think the discussion of limitations or the conclusion could include further discussion of whether we can attribute all of these changes solely to social media - are there other potential factors? Can we say that it is social media that significantly has made these changes to communication styles? Perhaps the authors could detail that the respondents perceive that the changes are based on their social media use.

Thank you for your feedback on the Discussion, Limitations, and Conclusion sections. We believe the current text effectively presents our findings and arguments regarding communication patterns in Jordan, particularly in relation to gender differences influenced by social media.

In addressing your suggestion for more clarity about what constitutes a 'high score,' we have included survey items and interpretations of the scores related to non-verbal communication.

The current discussion adequately conveys the implications of these scores and integrates qualitative insights from the focus groups, demonstrating how these findings are rooted in the participants' experiences and perceptions.

Regarding the focus group findings, we have indeed detailed the composition and context of these discussions, specifying that they involved a balanced gender makeup and reflecting cultural dynamics.

We recognize the potential impact of self-reported data, and while we mention this in the limitations section, we believe the discussion can engage with the nature of self-perception in a way that supports our findings rather than detracts from them.

In the conclusion, we acknowledge the complexity of attributing changes in communication solely to social media. We intentionally framed our findings to reflect the respondents' perceptions and the multifaceted influences on communication styles. We also added a paragraph to address the reviewer’s concerns. The discussion addresses potential external factors, linking them back to the central theme of social media's role in shaping these dynamics.

We appreciate your insights and are confident that the discussion is well-rounded and sufficiently detailed as it stands