Grammatical gender generally implies disadvantages for women (e.g., the generic masculine leading to real-life invisibility of women). Diverging from this idea, we here postulate that abstract concepts (such as “justice” or “democracy”), arguably reflecting the most sophisticated expression of human thought, are associated with femininity. Two archival studies (Study 1a, b) show the greater frequency of feminine gender among abstract nouns across seven (out of nine) Indo-European languages. Studies 2 and 4 show that feminine abstract nouns are envisaged as female, both explicitly and through a voice-assignment task. Furthermore, through Implicit Association Tests (IATs), we show that abstract concepts are associated with women as a social category (Studies 3a, b). Together, our studies show an association between abstractness and grammatical gender that carries psychological meaning through the gender congruency effect. Arguably, these cognitive processes may contribute to the idealization of women as “super-human,” through the association between abstractness and super-human imagery (Study 4).
AdamsonL.ŠereikaitėM. (2019). Representing gender and defaults: Evidence from Lithuanian. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), 121. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.860
3.
BarcaL.MazzucaC.BorghiA. M. (2020). Overusing the pacifier during infancy sets a footprint on abstract words processing. Journal of Child Language, 47(5), 1084–1099. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000920000070
4.
BareketO.KahalonR.ShnabelN.GlickP. (2018). The madonna-whore dichotomy: Men who perceive women's nurturance and sexuality as mutually exclusive endorse patriarchy and show lower relationship satisfaction. Sex Roles, 79, 519–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0895-7
BellerS.BrattebøK. F.LavikK. O.ReigstadR. D.BenderA. (2015). Culture or language: What drives effects of grammatical gender?Cognitive Linguistics, 26(2), 331–359. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0021
7.
BenderA.BellerS.KlauerK. C. (2016a). Crossing grammar and biology for gender categorisations: Investigating the gender congruency effect in generic nouns for animates. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28(5), 530–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2016.1148042
8.
BenderA.BellerS.KlauerK. C. (2016b). Lady Liberty and Godfather Death as candidates for linguistic relativity? Scrutinizing the gender congruency effect on personified allegories with explicit and implicit measures. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(1), 48–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1021701
9.
BenderA.BellerS.KlauerK. C. (2018). Gender congruency from a neutral point of view: The roles of gender classes and conceptual connotations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(10), 1580–1608. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000534
10.
BieniasB. (2011). Virgins or whores? The image of a renaissance woman in parlour games in William Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Othello. Acta Philologica, 39(39), 29–36.
11.
BossonJ. K.MichniewiczK. S. (2013). Gender dichotomization at the level of ingroup identity: What it is, and why men use it more than women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(3), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033126
12.
BraunF.SczesnyS.StahlbergD. (2005). Cognitive effects of masculine generics in German: An overview of empirical findings. Communications, 30(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2005.30.1.1
13.
BrownK. (2006). Tis pity she's a whore: The revision of Mary Magdalene in contemporary fiction. Papers on Language and Literature, 42(3), 291–316.
14.
BrugmannK. (1891). Zur Frage der Entstehung des grammatischen Geschlechtes. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (PBB), 15, 523–531.
15.
BrunoJ. (2012). The assignment of grammatical and inherent gender to English loan words in Lithuanian discourse. The ITB Journal, 13(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.21427/D7174F
16.
BrysbaertM.WarrinerA. B.KupermanV. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 904–911. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5
17.
CarpenterT. P.PogacarR.PulligC.KourilM.AguilarS.LaBouffJ.IsenbergN.ChakroffA. (2019). Survey-software implicit association tests: A methodological and empirical analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 51(5), 2194–2208. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01293-3
18.
DeFranzaD.MishraH.MishraA. (2020). How language shapes prejudice against women: An examination across 45 world languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000188
19.
Della RosaP. A.CatricalàE.ViglioccoG.CappaS. F. (2010). Beyond the abstract—concrete dichotomy: Mode of acquisition, concreteness, imageability, familiarity, age of acquisition, context availability, and abstractness norms for a set of 417 Italian words. Behavior Research Methods, 42(4), 1042–1048. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.4.1042
20.
EaglyA. H.MladinicA. (1994). Are people prejudiced against women? Some answers from research on attitudes, gender stereotypes, and judgments of competence. European Review of Social Psychology, 5(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779543000002
21.
FiasW.FischerM. H. (2005). Spatial representation of numbers. In The handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 43–54). Psychology Press.
22.
FuhrmanO.BoroditskyL. (2007). Mental time-lines follow writing direction: Comparing English and Hebrew speakers. In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the cognitive science society (Vol. 29, No. 29) (pp. 1007–1011). Cognitive Science Society.
23.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
GlickP.LameirasM.FiskeS. T.EckesT.MasserB.VolpatoC.ManganelliA. M.PekJ. C. X.HuangL.Sakalli-UğurluN.CastroY. R.D'Avila PereiraM. L.WillemsenT. M.BrunnerA.Six-MaternaI.WellsR. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(5), 713–728. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.713
26.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464
27.
GygaxP.SatoS.ÖttlA.GabrielU. (2021). The masculine form in grammatically gendered languages and its multiple interpretations: A challenge for our cognitive system. Language Sciences, 83, 101328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2020.101328
HigginsM. J.HayesJ. E. (2019). Learned color taste associations in a repeated brief exposure paradigm. Food Quality and Preference, 71, 354–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.08.013
JASP Team. (2025). JASP (Version 0.19.3) [Computer software].
32.
JessenF.HeunR.ErbM.GranathD.KloseU.PapassotiropoulosA.GroddW. (2000). The concreteness effect: Evidence for dual coding and context availability. Brain and Language, 74(1), 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2000.2340
33.
KahalonR.BareketO.VialA. C.SassenhagenN.BeckerJ. C.ShnabelN. (2019). The Madonna-whore dichotomy is associated with patriarchy endorsement: Evidence from Israel, the United States, and Germany. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(3), 348–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684319843298
KarpinskiA.HiltonJ. L. (2001). Attitudes and the implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5), 774. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.5.774
36.
KonishiT. (1993). The semantics of grammatical gender: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22(5), 519–534.
37.
Krys, K., Capaldi, C. A., van Tilburg, W., Lipp, O. V., Bond, M. H., Vauclair, C.‐M., Manickam, L. S. S., Domínguez‐Espinosa, A., Torres, C., Lun, V. M.‐C., Teyssier, J., Miles, L. K., Hansen, K., Park, J., Wagner, W., Yu, A. A., Xing, C., Wise, R., Sun, C.‐R.,…Ahmed, R. A. (2018). Catching up with wonderful women: The women-are-wonderful effect is smaller in more gender egalitarian societies. International Journal of Psychology, 53(S1), 21–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12420
38.
LandauM. J.RobinsonM. D.MeierB. P. (2014). Metaphor research in social psychology: Current issues and future directions. In LandauM.RobinsonM. D.MeierB. P. (Eds.), The power of metaphor: Examining its influence on social life (pp. 269–286). American Psychological Association.
39.
LuchkinaE.WaxmanS. (2023). Talking about the absent and the abstract: Referential communication in language and gesture. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 19(6), 978–992. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231180589
40.
LuraghiS. (2009). The origin of the feminine gender in PIE. Grammatical Change in Indo-European Languages. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.305.04lur
41.
LuraghiS. (2011). The origin of the Proto-Indo-European gender system: Typological considerations. Folia Linguistica, 45(2), 435–463. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2011.016
42.
MaD. S.CorrellJ.WittenbrinkB. (2015). The Chicago face database: A free stimulus set of faces and norming data. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1122–1135. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0532-5
43.
MaciuszekJ.PolakM.Świa¸tkowskaN. (2019). Grammatical gender influences semantic categorization and implicit cognition in Polish. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2208. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02208
44.
MatasovićR. (2004). Gender in Indo-European. Winter.
Mestres-MisséA.MünteT. F.Rodriguez-FornellsA. (2014). Mapping concrete and abstract meanings to new words using verbal contexts. Second Language Research, 30(2), 191–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658313512668
47.
MillerM. K.RauchJ. A.KaplanT. (2016). Gender differences in movie superheroes’ roles, appearances, and violence. Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology, No. 10. https://doi.org/10.7264/N3HX19ZK
48.
MorgenrothT.SendénM. G.LindqvistA.RenströmE. A.RyanM. K.MortonT. A. (2021). Defending the sex/gender binary: The role of gender identification and need for closure. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(5), 731–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620937188
49.
MullenM. K. (1990). Children’s classifications of nature and artifact pictures into female and male categories. Sex Roles, 23(9–10), 577–587. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00289769
50.
NicolsonP. (2003). Having it all?: Choices for today's superwoman. John Wiley & Sons.
Prewitt-FreilinoJ. L.CaswellT. A.LaaksoE. K. (2012). The gendering of language: A comparison of gender equality in countries with gendered, natural gender, and genderless languages. Sex Roles, 66(3-4), 268–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0083-5
53.
ReisE. (1997). Damned Women: Sinners and Witches in Puritan New England. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-8611-1.
54.
RichterT. L. (2017). Witches, whores, and virgin martyrs: Female roles in seventeenth century opera [Doctoral thesis]. University of California, Los Angeles.
SabineM. (2013). Veiled desires: Intimate portrayals of nuns in postwar Anglo-American film [Doctoral thesis]. Fordham Univ Press.
57.
ŞahinÖSoylu YalcinkayaN. (2021). The gendered brain: Implications of exposure to neuroscience research for gender essentialist beliefs. Sex Roles, 84(9), 522–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01181-7
58.
Sá-LeiteA. R.LunaK.FragaI.ComesañaM. (2020). The gender congruency effect across languages in bilinguals: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27, 677–693. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01702-w
59.
SamuelS.ColeG.EacottM. J. (2019). Grammatical gender and linguistic relativity: A systematic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(6), 1767–1786. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01652-3
60.
SchmitzD.SchneiderV.EsserJ.SchmitzD.SchneiderV.EsserJ. (2023). No genericity in sight: An exploration of the semantics of masculine generics in German. Glossa Psycholinguistics, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.5070/G6011192
SeraM. D.BergeC. A.Del Castillo PintadoJ. (1994). Grammatical and conceptual forces in the attribution of gender by English and Spanish speakers. Cognitive Development, 9(3), 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2014(94)90007-8
63.
ShohamA.LeeS. M. (2018). The causal impact of grammatical gender marking on gender wage inequality and country income inequality. Business & Society, 57(6), 1216–1251. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650317696231
StahlbergD.SczesnyS. (2001). Effekte des generischen Maskulinums und alternativer Sprachformen auf den gedanklichen Einbezug von Frauen [Effect of the generic use of the masculine pronoun and alternative forms of speech on the cognitive visibility of women]. Psychologische Rundschau, 52(3), 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1026/0033-3042.52.3.131
SuitnerC.MaassA.RonconiL. (2017). From spatial to social asymmetry: Spontaneous and conditioned associations of gender and space. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41(1), 46–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316676045
68.
SzameitatA. J.HamaidaY.TulleyR. S.SaylikR.OtermansP. C. (2015). Women are better than men”–public beliefs on gender differences and other aspects in multitasking. Plos One, 10(10), e0140371. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140371
69.
VaesJ.PaladinoP.PuviaE. (2011). Are sexualized women complete human beings? Why men and women dehumanize sexually objectified women. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(6), 774–785. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.v41.6
70.
ViglioccoG.VinsonD. P.PaganelliF.DworzynskiK. (2005). Grammatical gender effects on cognition: Implications for language learning and language use. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(4), 501–520.
71.
WarrinerA. B.KupermanV.BrysbaertM. (2013). Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1191–1207. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0314-x
WhittyM. T. (2001). The myth of the superwoman: Comparing young men’s and women’s stories of their future lives. Journal of Family Studies, 7(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.5172/jfs.7.1.87
