Findings in several domains have documented a gender-equality paradox, where greater social and economic gender equality predicts increased gender differentiation. Many of these findings have used subjective rating scales and thus have been dismissed as artifactual due to different reference groups in more versus less gender-equal societies. Although recent research has documented the gender-equality paradox using an objective criterion—pursuit of degrees in STEM—the robustness of this finding has also been challenged. The current investigation offers evidence for the gender-equality paradox using an objective marker of gender differentiation: baby names. We find given names are more phonetically gendered in more gender-equal societies, with female names being more likely unvoiced (a softer sound) and male names being more likely voiced (a harder sound). We offer a theoretical explanation based on optimal distinctiveness theory to explain why increasing gender equality might motivate a preference for greater gender differentiation.
AtariM.LaiM. H. C.DehghaniM. (2020). Sex differences in moral judgements across 67 countries. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 287, 20201201.
2.
BatesD. M.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.
3.
BemS. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88(4), 354–364.
4.
BertrandM.MullainathanS. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. The American Economic Review, 94, 991–1013.
5.
BotelhoT. L.AbrahamM. (2017). Pursuing quality: How search costs and uncertainty magnify gender-based double standards in a multistage evaluation process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(4), 698–730.
6.
BredaT.JouiniE.NappC.ThebaultG. (2020). Gender stereotypes can explain the gender-equality paradox. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(49), 31063–31069. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2008704117
7.
BrewerM. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482.
8.
CaiZ. G.ZhaoN. (2019). The sound of gender: Inferring the gender of names in a foreign language. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science, 3(1), 63–73.
9.
CharlesworthT. E. S.BanajiM. R. (2019). Patterns of implicit and explicit attitudes: I. Long-term change and stability from 2007 to 2016. Psychological Science, 30(2), 174–192.
10.
CostaP. T.JrTerraccianoA.McCraeR. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322–331.
11.
EnglandP.LevineA.MishelE. (2020). Progress toward gender equality in the United States has slowed or stalled. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(13), 6990–6997.
12.
EnglandP.LiS. (2006). Desegregation stalled: The changing gender composition of college majors, 1971-2002. Gender and Society, 20(5), 657–677.
13.
GuimondS.BranscombeN. R.BrunotS.BuunkA. P.ChatardA.DésertM.GarciaD. M.HaqueS.MartinotD.YzerbytV. (2007). Culture, gender, and the self: Variations and impact of social comparison processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1118–1134.
HeineS. J.LehmanD. R.PengK.GreenholtzJ. (2002). What’s wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales? The reference-group effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 903–918.
16.
InglehartR.NorrisP. (2003). Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change around the world. Cambridge University Press.
KittilsonM. C. (2006). Challenging parties, changing parliaments: Women and elected office in contemporary Western Europe. Ohio State University Press.
19.
KuppensT.PolletT. V. (2015). Gender equality probably does not affect performance at the Olympic Games: A comment on Berdahl, Uhlmann, and Bai (2015). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 144–147.
20.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). LmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82, 1–26.
21.
LahamS. M.KovalP.AlterA. L. (2012). The name-pronunciation effect: Why people like Mr. Smith more than Mr. Colquhoun. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 752–756.
22.
LauritsenJ. L.HeimerK.LynchJ. P. (2009). Trends in the gender gap in violent offending: New evidence from the national crime victimization survey. Criminology, 47, 361–399.
MartinA.E.SlepianM.L. (2018). Dehumanizing gender: The de-biasing effects of gendering human-abstracted entities. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 1681–1696.
25.
MehrabianA. (2001). Characteristics attributed to individuals on the basis of their first names. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 127, 59–88.
26.
MuthukrishnaM.HenrichJ.SlingerlandE. (2020). Psychology as a historical science. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 717–749.
OyamaT.OsakaE.KamadaA.OnzukaC.MotokiY. (2019). Cross-cultural and inter-periodical commonality of phonetic symbolism in initials of men and women: A preliminary study. The Japanese Journal of Psychonomic Science, 38(1), 105–108.
29.
ParkJ.MotokiK.PathakA.SpenceC. (2021). A sound brand name: The role of voiced consonants in pharmaceutical branding. Food Quality and Preference, 90, 104104.
30.
PathakA.CalvertG. A. (2020). Sounds sweet, sounds bitter: How the presence of certain sounds in a brand name can alter expectations about the product’s taste. Food Quality and Preference, 83, 1–10.
31.
PathakA.CalvertG. A.LimL. K. S. (2020). Harsh voices, sound branding: How voiced consonants in a brand’s name can alter its perceived attributes. Psychology and Marketing, 37(6), 837–847.
32.
PickettC. L.BonnerB. L.ColemanJ. M. (2002). Motivated self-stereotyping: Heightened assimilation and differentiation needs result in increased levels of positive and negative self-stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 543–562.
33.
PickettC. L.BrewerM. B. (2001). Assimilation and differentiation needs as motivational determinants of perceived in-group and out-group homogeneity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 341–348.
34.
PowellG. (2000). The glass ceiling: Explaining the good and bad news. In DavidsonM.BurkeR. (Eds.), Women in management: Current research issues (pp. 236–249). Sage.
35.
R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
36.
Ramati-ZiberL.ShnabelN.GlickP. (2020). The beauty myth: Prescriptive beauty norms for women reflect hierarchy-enhancing motivations leading to discriminatory employment practices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(2), 317–343.
37.
RichardsonS. S.ReichesM. W.BruchJ.BoulicaultM.NollN. E.Shattuck-HeidornH. (2020). Is there a gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM)? Commentary on the study by Stoet and Geary (2018). Psychological Science, 31(3), 338–341.
38.
SchwartzS. H.RubelT. (2005). Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 1010–1028.
39.
SeoG.HuangW.HanS. H. C. (2017). Conceptual review of underrepresentation of women in senior leadership positions from a perspective of gendered social status in the workplace: Implication for HRD research and practice. Human Resource Development Review, 16(1), 35–59.
40.
SlepianM. L.GalinskyA. D. (2016). The voiced pronunciation of initial phonemes predicts the gender of names. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 509–527.
StoetG.GearyD. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science, 29, 581–593.
43.
TopolinskiS.BoeckerL. (2016). Minimal conditions of motor inductions of approach-avoidance states: The case of oral movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(12), 1589–1603.
44.
TopolinskiS.MaschmannI. T.PecherD.WinkielmanP. (2014). Oral approach-avoidance: Affective consequences of muscular articulation dynamics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 885–896.
45.
TwengeJ. M. (1997). Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 36, 305–325.
46.
TwengeJ. M. (2001). Changes in women’s assertiveness in response to status and roles: A cross-temporal meta-analysis, 1931-1993. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.133
VarnumM. E. W.KitayamaS. (2011). What’s in a name? Popular names are less common on frontiers. Psychological Science, 22, 176–183.
49.
WaiJ.CacchioM.PutallazM.MakelM. C. (2010). Sex differences in the right tail of cognitive abilities: A 30 year examination. Intelligence, 38, 412–423.
50.
WoodW.EaglyA. H. (2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. In OlsonJ. M.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 46, pp. 55–123). Academic Press.
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.
