Can gender-fair language (GFL) shift gendered representations and stereotypical associations of science (masculine) and care (feminine) jobs? In the first preregistered study (Nparticipants = 338 and Ntrials = 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 (Nparticipants = 81 and Ntrials = 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.
BanegasD. L.LópezM. F. (2021). Inclusive language in Spanish as interpellation to educational authorities. Applied Linguistics, 42(2), 342–346. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amz026
3.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
4.
BrauerM. (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
5.
BrehmS. S.BrehmJ. W. (2013). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. Academic Press.
6.
BruckmüllerS.HegartyP.AbeleA. 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
7.
BussmannH.HellingerM. (2003). Gender across languages. John Benjamins.
CorbettG. G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge University Press.
10.
CroftA.SchmaderT.BlockK. (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.
CundiffJ. L.VescioT. K.LokenE.LoL. (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.
EberhardD. M.SimonsG. F.FennigC. D.2024). French. In Ethnologue: Languages of the world (27th ed.). SIL International. https://www.ethnologue.com/language/fra
13.
FormanowiczM.BedynskaS.CisłakA.BraunF.SczesnyS. (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.
FormanowiczM.HansenK. (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.
FriedrichM. C.DrößlerV.OberlehbergN.HeiseE. (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.
GabrielU.GygaxP.SarrasinO.GarnhamA.OakhillJ. (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.
GreenwaldA. G.McGheeD. E.SchwartzJ. 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.
GriceH. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In ColeP.MorganJ. L. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.
19.
Gustafsson SendénM.BäckE. A.LindqvistA. (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.
GygaxP. M.ElmigerD.ZuffereyS.GarnhamA.SczesnyS.von StockhausenL.BraunF.OakhillJ. (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
GygaxP.SarrasinO.LévyA.SatoS.GabrielU. (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
HodelL.FormanowiczM.SczesnyS.ValdrováJ.von StockhausenL. (2017). Gender-fair language in job advertisements: A cross-linguistic and cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(3), 384–401.
25.
HorvathL. K.MerkelE. F.MaassA.SczesnyS. (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.
JuddC. M.WestfallJ.KennyD. 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.
KörnerA.AbrahamB.RummerR.StrackF. (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
LeslieS.-J.CimpianA.MeyerM.FreelandE. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347(6219), 262–265. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261375
30.
LeysC.LeyC.KleinO.BernardP.LicataL. (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.
LindqvistA.RenströmE. A.Gustafsson SendénM. (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.
LukeS. 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.
MatuschekH.KlieglR.VasishthS.BaayenH.BatesD. (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.
MerkelE.CacciariC.FaralliM.MaassA. (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.
MiserskyJ.GygaxP. M.CanalP.GabrielU.GarnhamA.BraunF.ChiariniT.EnglundK.HanulikovaA.OttlA.ValdrovaJ.Von StockhausenL.SczesnyS. (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.
MotschenbacherH. (2010). Female-as-norm (FAN): A typology of female and feminine generics. In BieswangerM.MotschenbacherH.MühleisenS. (Eds.), Language in its socio-cultural context: New explorations in gendered, global and media uses (pp. 35–67). Peter Lang.
37.
MoultonJ.RobinsonG. M.EliasC. (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.
NosekB. 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.
NosekB. A.BanajiM. R.GreenwaldA. 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
PiresM. (2020). Assessing the mixed or generic feminine as an inclusive language strategy. In GiustiG.IannàccaroG. (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.
RenströmE. A.LindqvistA.AkbasG.HekanahoL.SendénM. 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.
ReubenE.SapienzaP.ZingalesL. (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.
SchunackS.BinanzerA. (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.
SchwarzN. (2014). Cognition and communication: Judgmental biases, research methods, and the logic of conversation. Psychology Press.
46.
SczesnyS.FormanowiczM.MoserF. (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.
SmedingA. (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.
SmedingA. (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
50.
SmedingA.QuintonJ. C.LauerK.BarcaL.PezzuloG. (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
SparavignaA. C.MarazzatoR. (2015). Using google NGram viewer for scientific referencing and history of science. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.01364.
53.
SpinelliE.ChevrotJ.-P.VarnetL. (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.
StahlbergD.BraunF.IrmenL.SczesnyS. (2007). Representation of the sexes in language. In FiedlerK. (Ed.), Social communication (pp. 163–187). Psychology Press.
55.
StarrC. 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.
StoutJ. G.DasguptaN. (2011). When he doesn’t mean you: gender-exclusive language as ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211406434
58.
TibblinJ.GranfeldtJ.Van De WeijerJ.GygaxP. (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.
TougasF.BrownR.BeatonA. M.JolyS. (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.
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, 82(3), 208–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.01.008
XiaoH.StricklandB.PeperkampS. (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.
ZitelnyH.ShalomM.Bar-AnanY. (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.
