556 HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / October 2004 Human Communication Research, Vol. 30 No. 4, October 2004 556–588 © 2004 International Communication Association Gender Schematicity, Gender Identity Salience, and Gender-Linked Language Use NICHOLAS A. PALOMARES University of California, Davis Using self-categorization theory, the effects of sex, chronic gender accessibility (i.e., gender schematicity), and gender identity salience on gender-linked language use in e-mail are ex- amined. Results confirmed interactive effects only. Gender schematic men and women whose gender was salient used typical gender-linked language (e.g., men used male language). With low gender salience, schematic men and women used countertypical gender-linked language (e.g., men used female language). The language of nonschematics varied minimally. Results are discussed regarding previous research on gendered language, the nature of gender iden- tity salience, and examining gendered language in computer-mediated communication. M uch theoretical and empirical debate surrounds the idea that the communicative behaviors of men and women exhibit both similarities and differences (Canary & Hause, 1993; Canary & Dindia, 1998). Certain situations reveal gender-based communicative dif- ferences, whereas others reveal similarities (Carli, 1990; McLachlan, 1991). In fact, a large scale review suggested that the similarities are far more prevalent than the differences and “that knowledge of a person’s gender will give us little ability to accurately predict how a person will behave in many situations” (Aries, 1996, p. 189). Theory, therefore, must be able to explain and predict how situational dynamics impact gender-based com- municative differences and similarities. The two major explanations pro- posed to account for gender-based communication, however, fall short in their explanatory capabilities. Some theorists claim that differences result from culturally learned behaviors (the gender-as-culture explanation; Nicholas A. Palomares (Ph.D. Candidate, University of California, Santa Barbara) is an assis- tant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of California, Davis. He expresses his gratitude to the late Jim Bradac, Kathy Kellermann, and Tony Mulac, who served as committee members for his Master’s degree, from which this project originated, at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He also thanks Jim Dillard, Andrew Flanagin, and Scott Reid. A prior version of this article received the Top Student Paper Award from the Interpersonal Communication Division at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, May, 2003, in San Diego, CA. Direct correspondence to: Nicholas A. Palomares, Department of Communication, One Shields Avenue, University of Califor- nia, Davis, CA 95616. E-mail: napalomares@ucdavis.edu.