Effective communication is key in conveying ideas, information, and emotions in personal, professional, and public interactions. However, it is evident that men and women often utilize different communication styles influenced by a combination of biological, sociocultural, and psychological factors. Recognizing these differences is crucial for many reasons, especially in developing and marketing male- and female-specific dietary supplements. It seems reasonable that when developing gender-specific products and designing the marketing associated with them, understanding gender-specific communication nuances would be advantageous in creating targeted messages and strategies. 

Gender-Based Communication Differences

It is not a new concept to discuss the different ways that men and women communicate and how each can understand where the other is coming from to enhance communication in romantic and professional relationships. Many books and television talk shows have focused on the topic. As co-founders of a science consultancy and colleagues of many years, we have often discussed this to improve our own interactions. However, we had never considered these differences and nuances from the perspective of how they may impact marketing. With much discussion surrounding gender-specific brands and products, it seemed reasonable to consider how the appreciation of such nuances may contribute to marketing messaging. After all, any marketing message needs to understand and incorporate who the message is meant for, what direct and indirect impressions the message will give, all while being open to feedback from the consuming public.

Currently, there is an overdue focus on improving the representation of women in research.

For years most clinical research has focused on males and not an even balance between females and males. Part of that conversation is a call for embracing the physiological differences between men and women and for recognizing that women have unique health needs based on their unique physiology. It is no longer okay to generalize research findings obtained from male subjects to female health. Women are not just smaller men (1). Therefore, their health products and the marketing associated with them must embrace that concept along with the research substantiating it.

It makes sense that the biological differences may contribute to the distinct communication styles between men and women. Often, when we consider biological differences, we automatically think of hormonal differences, and for good reason, however, biological differences go beyond just hormones. Research indicates that women tend to have more neural connections between the brain's hemispheres, facilitating enhanced emotional processing and integration of verbal and nonverbal cues (2). What does this mean? It means that many women may connect to communication styles that emphasize empathy, emotion sharing, and relationship-building. On the other hand, men's brains typically exhibit greater lateralization, allowing for compartmentalized processing and potentially contributing to more direct, task-oriented communication (3). This means that men might value information exchange over emotional expression and may foster more competitive communication dynamics.

In addition to biological explanations, societal norms and cultural expectations also significantly shape gender-specific communication styles.

Boys are often encouraged to display assertiveness, independence, and a focus on problem-solving, translating into communication patterns that prioritize status and directness (4). In contrast, girls are taught to prioritize empathy, rapport-building, and nurturing behaviors, leading to communication styles that emphasize emotions and relationships. Dr. Deborah Tannen and others have concluded that men engage in more of “report talk,” while females engage in “rapport talk.”

While it is not specifically discussed in the context of marketing, it is reasonable to conclude that these differences may play into how advertising and marketing is received (5). Dr. Tannen suggests that the communication gap is not that wide; it is the approach and goals of how communication is styled that is different. Women’s and men’s conversational styles are simply different ways of reaching the same goals (6). For the marketing professional this is good news, a small amount of consideration to some subtle differences in communication stye could equate to increased sales overall.

It has also been suggested that there are differences in the balance between verbal and nonverbal cues. Women tend to excel at nonverbal signals like facial expressions, body language, and tone of voice, enabling them to connect emotionally and understand subtleties in conversation (7). This ability to interpret nonverbal cues is said to contribute to more empathetic and nuanced interactions. Having this ability too may foster enhanced conversations.

Conversely, men may focus more on the verbal content of communication and rely less on nonverbal aspects of communication. Men might use or recognize fewer facial expressions and less frequent eye contact, which can impact their interpretation of emotional nuances (8). These differences in nonverbal expression can lead to misunderstandings, with women sometimes perceiving men as uninterested or emotionally distant and men perceiving women as overly driven by emotion. Perhaps recognizing our differences as complimentary as opposed to contradictory will go a long way in improving communications. The idea is not that anyone is right or wrong, but rather that by understanding where the other person in the communication is coming from, we may be better able to relate and ultimately share our messages (9,10).

Understanding gender-based communication differences can be very relevant in marketing, where targeted messaging can lead to more effective consumer engagement and product adoption.

For example, when developing a men’s or women’s specific product line. Since women often connect emotionally and are proficient at interpreting non-verbal communication skills, marketing campaigns may be more successful if they consider messaging focused on empathy, trust, loyalty, and connections to others.

When designing a men's line, it may be helpful to consider that their communication style often prioritizes task-oriented, direct exchanges. Therefore, a campaign emphasizing concrete benefits and clear information about product efficacy might attract male consumers. Promoting men’s supplements as practical tools to achieve very specific health goals could align with men’s communication style (10,11).

In conclusion, gender-based communication differences are rooted in a combination of biological, sociocultural, and psychological factors.

Recognizing and understanding these disparities is essential, especially in marketing dietary supplements. Crafting messages that align with the communication preferences of men and women can lead to more effective engagement, consumer satisfaction, and brand loyalty. Becoming sensitive, aware and oriented to understanding differences in communication styles may allow for greater success in what you communicate. By adapting marketing strategies to accommodate these gender-specific communication styles, dietary supplement companies can better connect with their target audiences and foster meaningful relationships in a dynamic market environment. 


References:

  1. Thorpe H, Bekker S, Fullagar S, et al. Advancing feminist innovation in sport studies: A transdisciplinary dialogue on gender, health and wellbeing. Front Sports Act Living. 2023;4:1060851. Published 2023 Jan 4. doi:10.3389/fspor.2022.1060851

  2. Ingalhalikar, M., Smith, A., Parker, D., Satterthwaite, T. D., Elliott, M. A., Ruparel, K., ... & Verma, R. (2014). Sex differences in the structural connectome of the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(2), 823-828.
  3. Baron-Cohen, S. (2003). The essential difference: Men, women and the extreme male brain. New York: Basic Books.
  4. Leaper, C., & Smith, T. E. (2004). A meta-analytic review of gender variations in children's language use: Talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech. Developmental Psychology, 40(6), 993-1027.
  5. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2013). The nature–nurture debates: 25 years of challenges in understanding the psychology of gender. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 340-357.
  6. Githens S. Men and women in conversation: an analysis of gender styles in language. Lafayette College. May 1991. https://faculty.georgetown.edu/bassr/githens/tannen.htm Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 898-924.
  7. Tannen D. The Truth about Gender Differences in How We Speak. Scientific American. March 1, 2016. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-gender-differences-in-how-we-speak/
  8. Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 898-924.
  9. Karniol, R., Grosz, E., & Schorr, I. (2005). Gender, communication, and nonverbal behavior. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(3), 296-308.
  10. Wood, J. T., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128(5), 699-727.
  11. Floyd, K. (2001). Toward a theory of supportive communication in health care contexts. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29(3), 197-226.