The struggle to achieve gender equality is accompanied by efforts to introduce gender-fair language. In languages with grammatical gender this implies the use of gender-appropriate forms (feminine for women and masculine for males). In the present research, results of a mixed method approach—a corpus analysis, a survey, and an experiment—provide consistent evidence that in Polish, feminine forms are still infrequent in women’s self-reference and that women psychologists continue to use masculine titles. Moreover, a qualitative inquiry examines the reasons why women prefer masculine over feminine job titles. Integrating findings from the two-stage design, we are able to identify the obstacles to promoting social change with the help of language and to understand the reasons behind them.
AbeleA. E.WojciszkeB. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 751-763.
2.
American Psychological Association (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC:
3.
BlaubergsM. S. (1980). An analysis of classic arguments against changing sexist language. Women’s Studies International Quarterly, 3, 135-147.
4.
BojarskaK. (2011). Wpływ androcentrycznych i inkluzywnych płciowo konstrukcji jeäzykowych na skojarzenia z płciä [Influence androcentric and sexually inclusive language constructs to associate with sex]. Studia Psychologiczne, 49(2), 53-68.
5.
BruckmüllerS.HegartyP.AbeleA. E. (2012). Framing gender differences: Linguistic normativity affects perceptions of power and gender stereotypes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 210-218.
6.
BuckG.CookK.QuigleyC.EastwoodJ.LucasY. (2009). Profiles of urban, low SES, African-American girls’ attitudes toward science: A sequential explanatory mixed-methods study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(4), 386-410.
7.
CollinsK. M. TOnwuegbuzieA. J.SuttonI. L. (2006). A model incorporating the rationale and purpose for conducting mixed methods research in special education and beyond. Learning Disabilities, 4, 67-100.
8.
CreswellJ. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
DenzinN. K. (1970). The research act in sociology. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
11.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.
FettersM. D.CurryL. A.CreswellJ. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48, 2134-2156.
14.
FiskeS. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In GilbertD. T.FiskeS. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 357-411). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
15.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902.
16.
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, 62-71.
17.
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, 206-212.
18.
GlickP.WilkK.PerreaultM. (1995). Images of occupations: Components of gender and status in occupational stereotypes. Sex Roles, 32, 565-582.
19.
GygaxP.GabrielU.SarrasinO.OakhillJ.GarnhamA. (2008). Generically intended, but specifically interpreted: When beauticians, musicians, and mechanics are all men. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 464-485.
20.
HansonW. E.CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L.PetskaK. S.CreswellJ. D. (2005). Mixed methods research designs in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 224-235.
21.
HegartyP.BuechelC. (2006). Androcentric reporting of gender differences in APA journals: 1965-2004. Review of General Psychology, 10, 377-389.
22.
HegartyP.WatsonN.FletcherL.McQueenG. (2011). When gentlemen are first and ladies are last: Effects of gender stereotypes on the order of romantic partners’ names. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 21-35.
23.
HellingerM.BußmannH. (2001, 2002, 2003). Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men (Vols. 1, 2, and 3). Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
24.
HodgkinS. (2008). Telling it all: A story of women’s social capital using a mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(4), 296-316.
25.
HorvathL. K.SczesnyS. (2013). Attracting women (and men) to leadership positions through gender-fair language. Paper presented at the EAWOP Small Group Meeting “Gender Equality in Organizations: The Impact of Stereotypical Perceptions and Gender Differences,” Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
26.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14-26.
27.
KingtonA.SammonsP.DayC.ReganE. (2011). Stories and statistics: Describing a mixed methods study of effective classroom practice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(2), 103-125.
28.
KoenigA. M.EaglyA. H.MitchellA. A.RistikariT. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 616-642.
29.
LynessK. S.HeilmanM. E. (2006). When fit is fundamental: Performance evaluations and promotions of upper-level female and male managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 777-785.
30.
McConnellA. R.FazioR. H. (1996). Women as men and people: Effects of gender-marked language. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1004-1013.
31.
MerkelE.MaassA.FrommeltL. (2012). Shielding women against status loss: The masculine form and its alternatives in Italian language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31, 311-320.
32.
MertensD. M. (2003). Mixed methods and the politics of human research: The transformative-emancipatory perspective. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 135-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
MertensD. M. (2007). Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 212-225.
34.
Mucchi-FainaA. (2005). Visible or influential? Language reforms and gender (in)equality. Social Science Information, 44, 189-215.
35.
NewmanI.RidenourC. S.NewmanC.DeMarcoG. M. P.Jr. (2003). A typology of research purposes and its relationship to mixed methods. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 167-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.LeechN. L. (2006). Linking research questions to mixed methods data analysis procedures. Qualitative Report, 11, 474-498.
37.
ParksJ. B.RobertonM. A. (1998). Contemporary arguments against nonsexist language: Blaubergs (1980) revisited. Sex Roles, 39, 445-461.
38.
PęzikP. (2012). Wyszukiwarka PELCRA dla danych NKJPNarodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego. [Search for data PELCRA NKJP]. Wydawnictwo PWN.
39.
PrenticeD. A.CarranzaE. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 269-281.
40.
RudmanL. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629-645.
41.
RudmanL. A.Moss-RacusinC. A.PhelanJ. E.NautsS. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 165-179.
42.
StahlbergD.BraunF.IrmenL.SczesnyS. (2007). Representation of the sexes in language. In FiedlerK. (Ed.), Social communication (pp. 163-187), New York, NY: Psychology Press.
43.
StahlbergD.SczesnyS. (2001). Effekte des generischen Maskulinums und alternativer Sprachformen auf den gedanklichen Einbezug von Frauen [Effects of masculine generics and alternative forms on the cognitive inclusion of women]. Psychologische Rundschau, 52, 131-140.
44.
StahlbergD.SczesnyS.BraunF. (2001). Name your favorite musician: Effects of masculine generics and of their alternatives in German. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 20, 464-469.
45.
StoutJ. G.DasguptaN. (2011). When he doesn’t mean you: Gender-exclusive language as ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 757-769.
46.
SweetmanD.BadieeM.CreswellW. (2010). Use of the transformative framework in mixed methods studies. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 441-454.
47.
TashakkoriA.CreswellJ.W. (2007). Editorial: The new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 3-7.
48.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49.
UNESCO (1999). Guidelines for gender-neutral language. Paris, France: Author.
