Sexist language excludes, trivializes, or diminishes either gender. Despite efforts by many professional bodies to encourage the use of nonsexist alternatives, sexist language use persists across many languages. Furthermore, research has shown that men are less supportive of nonsexist language alternatives than women, and that this effect is mediated by attitudes toward women. We propose that broader ideologies related to the perceived legitimacy of dominance hierarchies and existing social systems also explain this gender gap. British undergraduate participants completed measures of attitudes toward women, gender-specific system justification, and social dominance orientation. They also completed an inventory of attitudes toward sexist language. There was a strong gender difference in attitudes toward sexist language that was significantly mediated by gender-specific system justification and social dominance orientation. The relationship between gender and attitudes toward sexist language therefore appears to be driven by broader ideologies that serve to keep women “in their place”.
American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
2.
BriereJ.LanktreeC. (1983). Sex-role related effects of sex bias in language. Sex Roles, 9, 625-631.
3.
CalogeroR. M.JostJ. T. (2011). Self-subjugation among women: Exposure to sexist ideology, self-objectification, and the protective function of the need to avoid closure.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,100, 211-228.
4.
CarlinD. B.WinfreyK. L. (2009). Have you come a long way, baby? Hilary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and sexism in 2008 campaign coverage. Communication Studies, 4, 326-343.
5.
DaviesP. G.SpencerS. J.QuinnD. M.GerhardsteinR. (2002). Consuming images: How television commercials that elicit stereotype threat can restrain women academically and professionally. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 1615-1628.
6.
DoyleM. (1998). Introduction to the A-Z of non-sexist language. In CameronD. (Ed.),The feminist critique of language: A reader (2nd ed., pp. 149-154). London, England: Routledge.
7.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512.
8.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109-118.
9.
GarnhamA.GabrielU.SarrasinO.GygaxP.OakhillJ. (2012). Gender representation in language and grammatical cues: When beauticians, musicians and mechanics remain men. Discourse Processes, 49, 481-500.
10.
GygaxP.GabrielU.LévyA.PoolE.GrivelM.PedrazziniE. (2012). The masculine form and its competing interpretations in French: When linking grammatically masculine role names to female referents is difficult. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24, 395-408.
11.
GygaxP.GabrielU.SarrasinO.OakhillJ.GarnhamA. (2008). Generically intended, but specifically interpreted: When beauticians, musicians and mechanics are all men. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 464-485.
12.
HamiltonM. C. (1988). Using masculine generics: Does generic he increase male bias in the user’s imagery?Sex Roles, 19, 785-799.
13.
HayesA. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408-420.
14.
HegartyP.WatsonN.FletcherL.McQueenG. (2011). When gentlemen are first and ladies are last: Effects of gender stereotypes on the order or romantic partners’ names. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 21-35.
15.
HellingerM.BußmannH. (2001). Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
16.
HydeJ. S. (1984). Children’s understanding of sexist language. Developmental Psychology, 20, 697-706.
17.
JacobsonM. B.InskoW. R.Jr. (1985). Use of nonsexist pronouns as a function of one’s feminist orientation. Sex Roles, 13, 1-7.
18.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1-27.
19.
JostJ. T.KayA. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 498-509.
20.
JostJ. T.PelhamB. W.SheldonO.SullivanB. N. (2003). Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: Evidence of enhances system justification among the disadvantaged. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 13-36.
21.
KayA. C.JostJ. T. (2003). Complementary justice: Effects of “poor but happy” and “poor but honest” stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 823-837.
22.
KittoJ. (2011). Gender reference terms: Separating the women from the girls. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 185-187.
23.
KleinmanS. (2002). Why sexist language matters. Qualitative Sociology, 25, 299-304.
24.
MartynaW. (1978). What does “he” mean? Use of the generic masculine. Journal of Communication, 28, 131-138.
25.
MasserB. M.AbramsD. (1999). Contemporary sexism: The relationships among hostility, benevolence and neosexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 503-517.
26.
MathesonK.KristiansenC. M. (1987). The effect of sexist attitudes and social structure on the use of sex-biased pronouns. Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 395-398.
27.
MerkelE.MaassA.FrommeltL. (2010). Shielding women against status loss: The masculine form and its alternatives in the Italian language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31, 311-320.
28.
MoultonJ.RobinsonG. M.EliasC. (1978). Sex bias in language use: “Neutral pro-nouns that aren’t.”American Psychologist, 33, 1032-1036.
29.
NgS. H. (1990). Androcentric coding of man and his in memory by language users. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 455-464.
30.
ParksJ. B.RobertonM. A. (2000). Development and validation of an instrument to measure attitudes toward sexist/nonsexist language. Sex Roles, 42, 415-438.
31.
ParksJ. B.RobertonM. A. (2002). The gender gap in student attitudes toward sexist/nonsexist language: Implications for sport management education. Journal of Sport Management, 16, 190-208.
32.
ParksJ. B.RobertonM. A. (2004). Attitudes toward women mediate the gender effect on attitudes toward sexist language. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 233-239.
33.
PrattoF.LiuJ. H.LevinS.SidaniusJ.ShihM.BachrachH.HegartyP. (2000). Social dominance orientation and legitimization of inequality across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 369-409.
34.
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.LevinS. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 271-320.
35.
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.StallworthL. M.MalleB. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,67, 741-763.
36.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.
37.
PrenticeD. A. (1994). Do language reforms change our way of thinking?Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13, 3-19.
38.
SarrasinO.GabrielU.GygaxP. (2012). Sexism and attitudes toward gender-neutral language: The case of English, French and German. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 71, 113-124.
39.
SibleyC. G.WilsonM. S.DuckittJ. (2007). Antecedents of men’s hostile and benevolent sexism: The dual roles of social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 160-172.
40.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
41.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF.BoboL. (1994). Social dominance orientation and the political psychology of gender: A case of invariance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 998-1011.
42.
SpenceJ. T.HahnE. D. (1997). The attitudes toward women scale and attitude change in college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 17-34.
43.
StahlbergD.BraunF.IrmenL.SczesnyS. (2007). Representation of the sexes in language. In FiedlerK. (Ed.), Social communication (pp. 163-187). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
44.
StahlbergD.SczesnyS.BraunF. (2001). Name your favorite musician: Effects of masculine generics and their alternatives in German. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 20, 464-469.
45.
SteeleC. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613-629.
46.
StoutJ. G.DasguptaN. (2011). When he doesn’t mean you: Gender-exclusive language as ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 757-769.
47.
ThomasC. A.EssesV. M. (2004). Individual differences in reactions to sexist humour. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 7, 89-100.
48.
VerveckenD.HannoverB. (2012). Ambassadors of gender equality? How use of pair forms versus masculines as generics impacts perception of the speaker. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 754-762.
49.
VerveckenD.MoserF.SczesnyS.HannoverB. (2010, September). Entwicklung und validierung eines instruments zur messung der einstellung gegenüber geschlechtergerechter sprache [Development and validation of an instrument to measure attitudes towards gender fair language]. Poster presented at the 47th General Meeting of the German Psychological Association (DGPs), Bremen, Germany.
