The Perceptions of Communication Patterns among Undergraduate Students of Bachelor's Degree in English Language in Their Social Settings

The present investigation evaluates the interactional paradigms of undergraduate cohorts specializing in English for Intercultural Communication (EIC) and English for Professional Communication (EPC) at UiTM Shah Alam across informal interpersonal domains. Anchored in foundational interpersonal communication frameworks and socio-environmental contexts, this research assesses how academic specialization, gender variables, and localized social settings mediate daily peer-to-peer engagement. Adopting a structured quantitative methodology, this study utilized comprehensive survey instruments to analyze five core dimensions: interaction frequency, modality types, environmental contexts, behavioral habits, and perceived communicative success. Rigorous statistical evaluations, encompassing Independent Samples T-tests and One-Way ANOVA, were performed on a participant pool of N = 160. Empirical results reveal that female participants demonstrate markedly higher interactional engagement metrics compared to their male peers, with EPC students further exceeding the scores of those in the EIC stream. Conversely, the absence of significant longitudinal variance suggests a developmental stabilization across the undergraduate academic lifecycle. These findings provide academic administrators and educators with critical empirical evidence to refine programmatic design and enhance communicative proficiency within non-Western higher education landscapes.

social settings, UiTM Shah Alam, students, contrast, communication patterns.

1. Alatriste, L. (2015). The myths of Mars and Venus: Do men and women really speak different languages? Language and Psychoanalysis, 4(2), 111–115. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Argamon, S., Koppel, M., Fine, J., & Shimoni, A. (2003). Gender, genre, and writing style in formal written texts. Text & Talk, 23(3), 321–346. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bochner, S., Buker, E. A., & McLeod, B. M. (1976). Communication patterns in an international student dormitory: A modification of the "Small World" method. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 6(3), 275–290. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Broos, A. (2005). Gender and Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) anxiety: Male self-assurance and female hesitation. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8(1), 21–31. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Cameron, D. (2007). The myth of Mars and Venus: Do men and women really speak different languages? Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Eldrige, K. A., Sevier, M., Jones, J., Atkins, D. C., & Christensen, A. (2007). Demand-withdraw communication in severely distressed, moderately distressed, and nondistressed couples: Rigidity and polarity during relation and personal problem discussion. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(2), 218–226. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Fowler, F. (2013). Survey research methods (5th ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Fowler, F. (2018). Survey research methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Gupta, S. (2019). Family communication patterns questionnaire: Development and validation. ResearchGate Publication. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Heavey, C. L., Christensen, A., & Malamuth, N. M. (1995). The longitudinal impact of demand and withdrawal conflict. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63(6), 797–801. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Kjerulff, K. H., & Blood, M. R. (1973). A comparison of communication patterns in male and female graduate students. The Journal of Higher Education, 44(8), 623–632. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman's place. Harper & Row. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. A. (2018). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In The matrix of language (pp. 81–98). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Manago, A. M., Taylor, T., & Greenfield, P. M. (2012). Me and my 400 friends: The anatomy of college students' Facebook networks, their communication patterns, and well-being. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 369–380. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Newman, M. L., Groom, C. J., Handelman, L. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2008). Gender differences in language use: An analysis of 14,000 text samples. Discourse Processes, 45(3), 211–236. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Noller, P., & White, A. (1990). The validity of communication patterns questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 2(4), 478–482. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (7th ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Ridgeway, C. L. (2009). Framed before we know it: How gender shapes social relations. Gender & Society, 23(2), 145–160. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Ruel, E., Wagner, W. E., & Gillespie, B. J. (2016). Survey reliability and validity in research. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 7(3), 404–419. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Sheese, K., & Beaulieu, T. (2009). Reviews: Deborah Cameron: The myth of Mars and Venus: Do men and women really speak different languages? Feminism & Psychology, 19(1), 145–147. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Tajuddin, R. A., Baharudin, M., & Hoon, T. S. (2013). System quality and its influence on students' learning satisfaction in UiTM Shah Alam. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 677–685. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Tannen, D. (2005). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Tannen, D. (2006). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. HarperCollins. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Von Hippel, C., Wiryakusuma, C., Bowden, J., & Shochet, M. (2011). Stereotype threat and female communication styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(10), 1312–1324. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Evaluating the Impacts of Mind Mapping Strategy on Developing EFL Students’ Critical Reading Skills
• Significance of Reading Instructions for Language Improvement in Children with Down Syndrome
• Prenasalised Consonants in Liangmai
• Metadiscourse Matters: Definitions, Models, and Advantages for ESL/ EFL Writing
• Blank Minds and Stuck Voices: Understanding and Addressing Cognitive Anxiety in High-Stakes ESL Speaking Tests