Some Theoretical Implications of Female and Male Interaction in Unstructured Small Groups

Abstract

The contrasting assumptions and findings of three theoretical orientations frequently used to explain mixed-sex small group interaction are reviewed. Data from human relations training groups were analyzed to test sex-role differentiation theory hypotheses against alternative explanations grounded in role-status expectation and contextual role adaptation theories. Results did not support sex-role differentiation or adaptation orientations. Women were interactively dominant and more proactive and reactive to same-sex group members; men vacillated between attending to opposite-sex members or attempting global impact. Role-status expectation theory was advanced as the most appropriate explanatory framework for these results.