Gender-fair language, that is, referring to men and women with symmetrical linguistic forms, has been found to promote gender equality, but it is largely unknown which factors help make gender-fair forms more common in everyday life. Two studies examined whether speakers of German used more gender-fair forms after reading a text with gender-fair wording (vs. masculine generics vs. no personal nouns vs. another topic). Both studies showed consistently that women used more gender-fair forms after reading the gender-fair text than the other texts, whereas men did not. Men employed more gender-fair forms only after being made aware of these forms (Study 2). To conclude, merely reading gender-fair texts enhances women’s inclination to use gender-fair language, whereas men need to be made aware of this type of language use. Both studies highlight the importance of using gender-fair language frequently and consistently in everyday life.
American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
2.
BemS. L.BemD. J. (1973). Does sex-biased job advertising “aid and abet” sex discrimination?Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 61-73.
3.
BraunF.OelkersS.RogalskiK.BosakJ.SczesnyS. (2007). “Aus Gründen der Verständlichkeit . . .”: Der Einfluss generisch maskuliner und alternativer Personenbezeichnungen auf die kognitive Verarbeitung von Texten [“For reasons of intelligibility . . .” How masculine generics and alternative forms affect the cognitive processing of a text]. Psychologische Rundschau, 58, 183-189.
4.
CralleyE. L.RuscherJ. B. (2005). Lady, girl, female, or woman: Sexism and cognitive busyness predict use of gender-biased nouns. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 300-314.
5.
CroninC.JreisatS. (1995). Effects of modeling on the use of nonsexist language among high school freshpersons and seniors. Sex Roles, 33, 819-832.
6.
DemarmelsS.SchaffnerD. (2011). Gendersensitive Sprache in Unternehmenstexten [Gender-sensitive language in corporate texts]. In DemarmelsS.KesselheimW. (Eds.), Textsorten in der Wirtschaft. Zwischen textlinguistischem Wissen und wirtschaftlichem Handeln [Gender-sensitive language in business texts] (pp. 89-120). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag.
7.
GabrielU.MellenbergerF. (2004). Exchanging the generic masculine for gender-balanced forms—The impact of context valence. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 63, 273-278.
8.
GalloisC.OgayT.GilesH. (2005). Communication accommodation theory: A look back and a look ahead. In GudykunstW. B. (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 121-148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
HamiltonM. C.HunterB.Stuart-SmithS. (1992). Jury instructions worded in the masculine generic: Can a woman claim self-defense when “he” is threatened? In ChrislerJ. C.HowardD. (Eds.), New directions in feminist psychology. Practice, theory, and research (pp. 169-178). New York, NY: Springer.
10.
HellingerM.BußmannH. (2001). The linguistic representation of women and men. In HellingerM.BußmannH. (Eds.), Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men—Volume I (pp. 1-25). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
11.
KoeserS.SczesnyS. (2014). Promoting gender-fair language: The impact of arguments on language use, attitudes, and cognitions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 548-560.
12.
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.
13.
MaassA.ArcuriL. (1996). Language and stereotyping. In MacraeC. N.StangorC.HewstoneM. (Eds.), Stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 193-226). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
14.
McMinnM. R.LindsayS. F.HannumL. E.TroyerP. K. (1990). Does sexist language reflect personal characteristics?Sex Roles, 23, 389-396.
15.
McMinnM. R.TroyerP. K.HannumL. E.FosterJ. D. (1991). Teaching nonsexist language to college students. Journal of Experimental Education, 59, 153-161.
16.
MuschJ.BrockhausR.BröderA. (2002). Ein Inventar zur Erfassung von zwei Faktoren sozialer Erwünschtheit [An inventory for the assessment of two factors of social desirability]. Diagnostica, 48, 121-129.
17.
PrenticeD. A. (1994). Do language reforms change our way of thinking?Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13, 3-19.
18.
PuschL. F. (2014). Gerecht und Geschlecht: Neue sprachkritische Glossen [Fair and gender: New commentaries on language critique]. Göttingen, Germany: Wallstein.
19.
QuadeD. (1967). Rank analysis of covariance. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 62, 1187–1200.
20.
Schweizerische Bundeskanzlei. (2009). Geschlechtergerechte Sprache: Leitfaden zum geschlechtergerechten Formulieren im Deutschen [Gender-fair language: Guideline for gender-fair wording in German]. Retrieved from http://www.bk.admin.ch/dokumentation/sprachen/04915/05313/
21.
SczesnyS.MoserF.WoodW. (2014). Beyond sexist beliefs: How do people decide to gender-inclusive language? Manuscript submitted for publication.
22.
StahlbergD.BraunF.IrmenL.SczesnyS. (2007). Representations of the sexes in language. In FiedlerK. (Ed.), Social communications (pp. 163-187). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
23.
StoutJ. G.DasguptaN. (2011). When he doesn’t mean you: Gender-exclusive language as ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 757-769.
24.
SwimJ. K.MallettR.StangorC. (2004). Understanding subtle sexism: Detection and use of sexist language. Sex Roles, 51, 117-128.
25.
VerveckenD.HannoverB.WolterI. (2013). Changing (S)expectations: How gender fair job descriptions impact children’s perceptions and interest regarding traditionally male occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 8, 208-220.
