The Middle Dot Challenge: Influence of Gender-Fair Language on Representations and Stereotypical Associations of Science and Care Jobs

Abstract

Can gender-fair language (GFL) shift gendered representations and stereotypical associations of science (masculine) and care (feminine) jobs? In the first preregistered study (N_participants = 338 and N_trials = 9,464), the influence of GFL—using the middle dot—on gender representations of science and care jobs was assessed with self-reports. GFL shifted these representations towards gender parity compared to masculine and feminine generics. We observed small effects with this direct measure. Moving to an indirect measure, a second preregistered study (N_participants = 81 and N_trials = 18,144) designed a new version of the Implicit Association Test (IAT) to evaluate gender and science/care job associations, presented in generic vs. GFL forms. We replicated the IAT effect of stereotype congruency. This effect was moderated by GFL. Findings support the relevance of GFL to modify gendered representations and stereotypical associations of science and care jobs, along with that of both feminization and masculinization of job titles.

Keywords

gender stereotypes gender-fair language masculine generic feminine generic implicit association test STEM care

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abelson

R. P.

(1985). A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97(1), 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.97.1.129

Banegas

D. L.

López

M. F.

(2021). Inclusive language in Spanish as interpellation to educational authorities. Applied Linguistics, 42(2), 342–346. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amz026

Bates

Mächler

Bolker

Walker

(2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01

Brauer

(2008). Un ministre peut-il tomber enceinte ? L’impact du générique masculin sur les représentations mentales. L’Année Psychologique, 108(02), 243. https://doi.org/10.4074/S0003503308002030

Brehm

S. S.

Brehm

J. W.

(2013). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. Academic Press.

Bruckmüller

Hegarty

Abele

A. E.

(2012). Framing gender differences: Linguistic normativity affects perceptions of power and gender stereotypes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(2), 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.858

Bussmann

Hellinger

(2003). Gender across languages. John Benjamins.

Chopra

Sweetman

(2014). Introduction to gender, development and care. Gender & Development, 22(3), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2014.975486

Corbett

G. G.

(1991). Gender. Cambridge University Press.

10.

Croft

Schmader

Block

(2015). An underexamined inequality: Cultural and psychological barriers to men’s engagement with communal roles. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(4), 343–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314564789

11.

Cundiff

J. L.

Vescio

T. K.

Loken

(2013). Do gender–science stereotypes predict science identification and science career aspirations among undergraduate science majors? Social Psychology of Education, 16(4), 541–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-9232-8

12.

Eberhard

D. M.

Simons

G. F.

Fennig

C. D.

2024). French. In Ethnologue: Languages of the world (27th ed.). SIL International. https://www.ethnologue.com/language/fra

13.

Formanowicz

Bedynska

Cisłak

Braun

Sczesny

(2013). Side effects of gender-fair language: How feminine job titles influence the evaluation of female applicants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(1), 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1924

14.

Formanowicz

Hansen

(2022). Subtle linguistic cues affecting gender in(equality). Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 41(2), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X211035170

15.

Friedrich

M. C.

Drößler

Oberlehberg

Heise

(2021). The influence of the gender asterisk (“gendersternchen”) on comprehensibility and interest. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 760062. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.760062

16.

Gabriel

Gygax

Sarrasin

Garnham

Oakhill

(2008). Au pairs are rarely male: Norms on the gender perception of role names across English, French, and German. Behavior Research Methods, 40(1), 206–212. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.1.206

17.

Greenwald

A. G.

McGhee

D. E.

Schwartz

J. L.

(1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464

18.

Grice

H. P.

(1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole

Morgan

J. L.

(Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.

19.

Gustafsson Sendén

Bäck

E. A.

Lindqvist

(2015). Introducing a gender-neutral pronoun in a natural gender language: The influence of time on attitudes and behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00893

20.

Gygax

P. M.

Elmiger

Zufferey

Garnham

Sczesny

von Stockhausen

Braun

Oakhill

(2019). A language Index of grammatical gender dimensions to study the impact of grammatical gender on the way we perceive women and men. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1604. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01604

21.

Gygax

Gesto

(2007). Féminisation et lourdeur de texte. L’Année Psychologique, 107(2), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.4074/S0003503307002059

22.

Gygax

Sarrasin

Lévy

Sato

Gabriel

(2013). La représentation mentale du genre pendant la lecture: État actuel de la recherche francophone en psycholinguistique. Journal of French Language Studies. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269512000439

23.

Haut Conseil à l'Égalité entre les femmes et les hommes (2022). Guide pour une communication publique sans stéréotypes de sexe (Version actualisée). https://www.haut-conseil-egalite.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/guide_egacom_sans_stereotypes-2022-versionpublique-min.pdf

24.

Hodel

Formanowicz

Sczesny

Valdrová

von Stockhausen

(2017). Gender-fair language in job advertisements: A cross-linguistic and cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(3), 384–401.

25.

Horvath

L. K.

Merkel

E. F.

Maass

Sczesny

(2016). Does Gender-Fair Language Pay Off? The Social Perception of Professions from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02018

26.

Judd

C. M.

Westfall

Kenny

D. A.

(2017). Experiments with more than one random factor: Designs, analytic models, and statistical power. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 601–625. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033702

27.

Körner

Abraham

Rummer

Strack

(2022). Gender representations elicited by the gender star form. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 41(5), 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X22108018

28.

Lakens

(2022). Sample size justification. Collabra: Psychology, 8(1), 33267. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.33267

29.

Leslie

S.-J.

Cimpian

Meyer

Freeland

(2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347(6219), 262–265. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261375

30.

Leys

Ley

Klein

Bernard

Licata

(2013). Detecting outliers: Do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 764–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.03.013

31.

Lindqvist

Renström

E. A.

Gustafsson Sendén

(2019). Reducing a male bias in language? Establishing the efficiency of three different gender-fair language strategies. Sex Roles, 81(1-2), 109–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0974-9

32.

Luke

S. G.

(2017). Evaluating significance in linear mixed-effects models in R. Behavior Research Methods, 49(4), 1494–1502. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0809-y

33.

Matuschek

Kliegl

Vasishth

Baayen

Bates

(2017). Balancing type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.001

34.

Merkel

Cacciari

Faralli

Maass

(2017). It only needs one man or can mixed groups be described by feminine generics? Journal of Applied Psycholinguistics, XVII, https://doi.org/10.19272/201707702003

35.

Misersky

Gygax

P. M.

Canal

Gabriel

Garnham

Braun

Chiarini

Englund

Hanulikova

Ottl

Valdrova

Von Stockhausen

Sczesny

(2014). Norms on the gender perception of role nouns in Czech, English, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, and Slovak. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 841–871.

36.

Motschenbacher

(2010). Female-as-norm (FAN): A typology of female and feminine generics. In Bieswanger

Motschenbacher

Mühleisen

(Eds.), Language in its socio-cultural context: New explorations in gendered, global and media uses (pp. 35–67). Peter Lang.

37.

Moulton

Robinson

G. M.

Elias

(1978). Sex bias in language use: ‘neutral’ pronouns that aren’t. American Psychologist, 33(11), 1032–1036. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.33.11.1032

38.

Nosek

B. A.

(2005). Moderators of the relationship between implicit and explicit evaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(4), 565–584. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.134.4.565

39.

Nosek

B. A.

Banaji

M. R.

Greenwald

A. G.

(2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.1.44

40.

Oakhill

Garnham

Reynolds

(2005). Immediate activation of stereotypical gender information. Memory & Cognition, 33(6), 972–983. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193206

41.

Pires

(2020). Assessing the mixed or generic feminine as an inclusive language strategy. In Giusti

Iannàccaro

(Eds.), Language, gender and hate speech: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 111–124). Fondazione Università Ca’ Foscari. http://doi.org/10.30687/978-88-6969-478-3/006

42.

Renström

E. A.

Lindqvist

Akbas

Hekanaho

Sendén

M. G.

(2023). Are gender-neutral pronouns really neutral? Testing a male bias in the grammatical genderless languages turkish and Finnish. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 42(4), 476–487. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X221146229

43.

Reuben

Sapienza

Zingales

(2014). How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(12), 4403–4408. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1314788111

44.

Schunack

Binanzer

(2022). Revisiting gender-fair language and stereotypes – A comparison of word pairs, capital I forms and the asterisk. Zeitschrift Für Sprachwissenschaft, 41(2), 309–337. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2022-2008

45.

Schwarz

(2014). Cognition and communication: Judgmental biases, research methods, and the logic of conversation. Psychology Press.

46.

Sczesny

Formanowicz

Moser

(2016). Can Gender-Fair Language Reduce Gender Stereotyping and Discrimination? Frontiers in Psychology, 7, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00025

47.

SIEP. (2018). Service of information on education and profession. https://www.siep.be/

48.

Smeding

(2012). Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): An investigation of their implicit gender stereotypes and Stereotypes’ connectedness to math performance. Sex Roles, 67(11-12), 617–629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0209-4

49.

Smeding

50.

Smeding

Quinton

J. C.

Lauer

Barca

Pezzulo

(2016). Tracking and simulating dynamics of implicit stereotypes: A situated social cognition perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(6), 817–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000063

51.

Sniezek

J. A.

Jazwinski

C. H.

(1986). Gender bias in English: In search of fair language. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16(7), 642–662. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1986.tb01165.x

52.

Sparavigna

A. C.

Marazzato

(2015). Using google NGram viewer for scientific referencing and history of science. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.01364.

53.

Spinelli

Chevrot

J.-P.

Varnet

(2023). Neutral is not fair enough: Testing the efficiency of different language gender-fair strategies. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1256779. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1256779

54.

Stahlberg

Braun

Irmen

Sczesny

(2007). Representation of the sexes in language. In Fiedler

(Ed.), Social communication (pp. 163–187). Psychology Press.

55.

Starr

C. R.

(2018). Mind the gender gap: Changing misconceptions about gender, leadership, and occupational segregation: Bridging the gender gap: Seven principles for achieving gender balance. By Lynn Roseberry and Johan Roos. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2017. Sex Roles, 78(5-6), 453–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0833-0.

56.

Steffens

M. C.

(2004). Is the implicit association test immune to faking? Experimental Psychology, 51(3), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.51.3.165

57.

Stout

J. G.

Dasgupta

(2011). When he doesn’t mean you: gender-exclusive language as ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211406434

58.

Tibblin

Granfeldt

Van De Weijer

Gygax

(2023). The male bias can be attenuated in Reading: On the resolution of anaphoric expressions following gender-fair forms in French. Glossa Psycholinguistics, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.5070/G60111267

59.

Tougas

Brown

Beaton

A. M.

Joly

(1995). Neosexism: Plus Ça Change, Plus C’est Pareil. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(8), 842–849. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295218007

60.

Vervecken

Hannover

Wolter

(2013). Changing (S)expectations: How gender fair job descriptions impact children’s perceptions and interest regarding traditionally male occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82(3), 208–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.01.008

61.

Westfall

(2015). PANGEA: Power analysis for general anova designs. Retrieved from at http://jakewestfall.org/ publications/pangea.pdfwork?

62.

Xiao

Strickland

Peperkamp

(2022). How fair is gender-fair language? Insights from gender ratio estimations in French. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 0261927X2210846. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X221084643

63.

Zitelny

Shalom

Bar-Anan

(2017). What is the implicit gender-science stereotype? Exploring correlations between the gender-science IAT and self-report measures. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(7), 719–735. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616683017

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

2.55 MB