The present research investigates whether arguments encourage speakers to use and to approve of gender-fair language. We collected and pretested arguments regarding gender-fair language and masculine generics and created four messages which supported either gender-fair usage or masculine generics (strong and weak arguments) as well as two control texts. Results showed that speakers changed their language behavior more in the direction of gender-fairness when they had been exposed to arguments for gender-fair language than after control texts. We did not find any effect of arguments promoting masculine generics and no effect on cognitive responses and attitudes. Taken together, these results show that arguments promoting gender-fair language can motivate speakers to use gender-fair wording, a new and important finding in the context of implementing gender equality in language.
AreniC. S. (2003). The effects of structural and grammatical variables on persuasion: An Elaboration Likelihood Model perspective. Psychology & Marketing,20, 349-375.
3.
BlaubergsM. S. (1978). Changing the sexist language: The theory behind the practice. Psychology of Women Quarterly,2, 244-261.
4.
BlaubergsM. S. (1980). An analysis of classic arguments against changing sexist language. Women’s Studies International Quarterly,3, 135-147.
5.
BriñolP.PettyR. E. (2012). The history of attitudes and persuasion research. In KruglanskiA. W.StroebeW. (Eds.), Handbook of the history of social psychology (pp. 285-320). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
6.
BußmannH.HellingerM. (2003). Engendering female visibility in German. In HellingerM.BußmannH. (Eds.), Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men (Vol. 3, pp. 141-174). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
7.
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E. (1981). Social psychological procedures for cognitive response assessment: The thought-listing technique. In MerluzziT. V.GlassC. R.GenestM. (Eds.), Cognitive assessment (pp. 304-342). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
8.
DaltonD.OrtegrenM. (2011). Gender differences in ethics research: The importance of controlling for the social desirability response bias. Journal of Business Ethics,103, 73-93.
9.
DemarmelsS.SchaffnerD. (2011). Gendersensitive Sprache in Unternehmenstexten [Gender-sensitive language in business texts]. In DemarmelsS.KesselheimW. (Eds.), Textsorten in der Wirtschaft. Zwischen textlinguistischem Wissen und wirtschaftlichem Handeln [Genres in economy: Between text-linguistic knowledge and economic actions] (pp. 89-120). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag.
10.
EaglyA. H.MladinicA.OttoS. (1991). Are women evaluated more favorably than men?Psychology of Women Quarterly,15, 203-216.
11.
GrandpreJ.AlvaroE. M.BurgoonM.MillerC. H.HallJ. R. (2003). Adolescent reactance and anti-smoking campaigns: A theoretical approach. Health Communication,15, 349-366.
12.
GreenwaldA. G. (1968). Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude change. In GreenwaldA. G.BrockT. C.OstromT. M. (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp. 147-170). New York: Academic Press.
13.
HellingerM. (1985). Reaktionen auf die “Richtlinien zur Vermeidung sexistischen Sprachgebrauchs” [Reactions to the “Guidelines for avoiding sexist language”]. In HellingerM. (Ed.), Sprachwandel und feministische Sprachpolitik: Internationale Perspektiven [Language change and feminist language politics: International perspectives]. (pp. 255-260). Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
14.
HellingerM. (2000). Feministische Sprachpolitik und politische Korrektheit-der Diskurs der Verzerrung [Feminist language politics and political correctness–the discourse of distortion]. In Eichhoff-CyrusK. M.HobergR. (Eds.), Die deutsche Sprache zur Jahrtausendwende [The German language at the turn of the millennium] (pp. 177-191). Mannheim, Germany: Duden.
15.
HellingerM.BußmannH. (2001). The linguistic representation of women and men. In HellingerM.BußmannH. (Eds.), Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men. (Vol. 1, pp. 1-25). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
16.
HorvathL. K.SczesnyS. (2014). Reducing the lack of fit for women in leadership: Can gender-fair language bring more women to the top? Manuscript in revision for publication.
17.
IrmenL. (2007). What’s in a (role) name? Formal and conceptual aspects of comprehending personal nouns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 36,431-456.
18.
JonasK.ZieglerR. (2007). Attitudinal ambivalence. In HewstoneM.SchutH. A. W.de WitJ. B. F.van den BosK.StroebeM. S. (Eds.), The scope of social psychology (pp. 29-42). Hove, England: Psychology Press.
19.
Keine “Fußgängerstreifen” mehr in Bern [No more pedestrian crossings in Bern]. (2010, June3). Tagesanzeiger. Retrieved from http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch
20.
KuhnE. A.GabrielU. (2014). Actual and potential gender-fair language use: The role of language competence and the motivation to use accurate language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 214-225.
21.
LandisJ. R.KochG. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics,33, 159-174.
22.
McMinnM. R.FosterJ. D. (1991). A computer program to teach nonsexist language. Teaching of Psychology,18, 115-117.
23.
McMinnM. R.TroyerP. K.HannumL. E.FosterJ. D. (1991). Teaching nonsexist language to college students. Journal of Experimental Education,59, 153-161.
24.
Mucchi-FainaA. (2005). Visible or influential? Language reforms and gender (in)equality. Social Science Information,44, 189-215.
25.
MuschJ.BrockhausR.BröderA. (2002). Ein Inventar zur Erfassung von zwei Faktoren sozialer Erwünschtheit [An inventory for capturing two factors of social desirability]. Diagnostica,48, 121-129.
26.
ParksJ. B.RobertonM. A. (1998). Contemporary arguments against nonsexist language: Blaubergs (1980) revisited. Sex Roles,38, 445-461.
27.
ParksJ. B.RobertonM. A. (2008). Generation gaps in attitudes toward sexist/nonsexist language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology,27, 276-283.
28.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). New York, NY: Academic Press.
29.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T.GoldmanR. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41, 847-855.
30.
PettyR. E.HaugtvedtC. P.SmithS. M. (1995). Elaboration as a determinant of attitude strength: Creating attitudes that are persistent, resistant, and predictive of behavior. In PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 93-130). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
31.
PrenticeD. A. (1994). Do language reforms change our way of thinking?Journal of Language and Social Psychology,13, 3-19.
32.
PuschL. F. (2011). Deutsch auf Vorderfrau[German in ‚female shape’ = shipshape]. Göttingen, Germany: Wallstein.
33.
PuschL. F. (2014). Gerecht und Geschlecht [fair and gender]. Göttingen, Germany: Wallstein.
34.
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.
35.
Schweizerische Bundeskanzlei. (2009). Geschlechtergerechte Sprache: Leitfaden zum geschlechtergerechten Formulieren im Deutschen[Gender-fair language: Guideline for the use of gender-fair language]. Retrieved from http://www.bk.admin.ch/dokumentation/sprachen/04915/05313/
36.
SczesnyS.MoserF.WoodW. (2014). Beyond sexist beliefs - Who uses gender-inclusive language? Manuscript submitted for publication.
37.
StahlbergD.BraunF.IrmenL.SczesnyS. (2007). Representations of the sexes in language. In FiedlerK. (Ed.), Social communication (pp. 163-187). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
38.
StoutJ. G.DasguptaN. (2011). When he doesn’t mean you: Gender-exclusive language as ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,37, 757-769.
39.
VickersA. J. (2005). Parametric versus non-parametric statistics in the analysis of randomized trials with non-normally distributed data. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 5, 35.
40.
WeinfurtK. P. (2000). Repeated measures analyses: ANOVA, MANOVA, and HLM. In GrimmL. G.YarnoldP. R. (Eds.), Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics (pp. 317-361). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
