585727

research-article2015
PSPXXX10.1177/0146167215585727Personality and Social Psychology BulletinSczesny et al.

Article

Personality and Social

Beyond Sexist Beliefs: How Do People

Psychology Bulletin
2015, Vol. 41(7) 943­–954
© 2015 by the Society for Personality
Decide to Use Gender-Inclusive and Social Psychology, Inc
Reprints and permissions:

Language? sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0146167215585727
pspb.sagepub.com

Sabine Sczesny1, Franziska Moser2, and Wendy Wood3

Abstract
When people use generic masculine language instead of more gender-inclusive forms, they communicate gender stereotypes
and sometimes exclusion of women from certain social roles. Past research related gender-inclusive language use to sexist
beliefs and attitudes. Given that this aspect of language use may be transparent to users, it is unclear whether people explicitly
act on these beliefs when using gender-exclusive language forms or whether these are more implicit, habitual patterns. In two
studies with German-speaking participants, we showed that spontaneous use of gender-inclusive personal nouns is guided
by explicitly favorable intentions as well as habitual processes involving past use of such language. Further indicating the joint
influence of deliberate and habitual processes, Study 2 revealed that language-use intentions are embedded in explicit sexist
ideologies. As anticipated in our decision-making model, the effects of sexist beliefs on language emerged through deliberate
mechanisms involving attitudes and intentions.

Keywords
gender stereotypes, language production, grammatical gender, gender-inclusive language, sexism

Received August 21, 2014; revision accepted April 12, 2015

The last half decade saw a cultural shift in the gender termi-
nology in language use in many nations. For example, the
use of generic masculine pronouns such as he, him, and his
in English-language books decreased greatly across the 20th
century (Twenge, Campbell, & Gentile, 2012). Similarly,
between the 1960s and 1990s, spoken language in Australian
radio programs and parliamentary debates decreased in the
frequency of use of such pronouns and increased slightly in
use of he or she and more markedly in the frequency of use
of the singular they (Pauwels, 2003). In part, the switch to
gender-inclusive language comes from the prescriptive lan-
guage requirements of scientific and other professional asso-
ciations, along with government mandates, which
increasingly specify that writing avoids sexist terminology
and instead uses gender-inclusive language terms (e.g.,
American Psychological Association, 2009; UNESCO,
1999). Outside of these formal requirements, however, peo-
ple have a choice about whether to spontaneously use gen-
der-inclusive language in daily life.
Understanding the psychological mechanisms behind
gender-inclusive language use is important because interper-
sonal communication contributes to gender stereotyping via
written words, spoken utterances, and the mass media. As a
tool of social practice, language functions as a device not
only for transferring information but also for expressing
social categorizations and hierarchies. In this way, it contrib-
utes to the construction and communication of gender (Maass
& Arcuri, 1996). For instance, reading a personal noun, such
as engineer, makes readers think of a male rather than a
female person, whereas kindergarten teacher evokes expec-
tations of a woman rather than a man (e.g., for Spanish:
Carreiras, Garnham, Oakhill, & Cain, 1996; German: Irmen,
2007; Italian: Cacciari & Padovani, 2007).
Along with demonstrating the deleterious effects of sexist
language, research has linked gender-exclusive language
with sexist beliefs and attitudes (Swim, Mallett, & Stangor,
2004). Yet, existing accounts do not specify the psychologi-
cal mechanisms by which sexist beliefs/attitudes influence
language use, and several different mechanisms could be at
work. People may make explicit choices about how to repre-
sent women and men in forms of speech, and it is possible
that use of gender-inclusive language stems mostly from
1
University of Bern, Switzerland
2
University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland
3
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA
Corresponding Author:
Sabine Sczesny, Department of Psychology, University of Bern,
Fabrikstrasse 8, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.
Email: sabine.sczesny@psy.unibe.ch

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF HARTFORD on July 13, 2015

944
such deliberate decisions. However, it is also possible that
less deliberate mechanisms such as habits formed from past
language use influence gendered expressions, even if those
expressions are not entirely consistent with actors’ deliberate
intentions. Either or both of these mechanisms could be
responsible for carrying the effects of sexist beliefs to lan-
guage behavior. The current research examines these poten-
tial deliberate and habitual mechanisms and identifies
components of these mechanisms that help to explain previ-
ous relations between sexist beliefs and attitudes and (lack
of) use of gender-inclusive language.
The present research first tested a model of spontaneous
language use that includes habitual mechanisms that arise
from past repetition as well as deliberate mechanisms of
intentional choice. Second, we tested the extent to which
these habitual and deliberate psychological mechanisms are
responsible for the effects of sexist ideologies on gender-
inclusive language choices.
Consequences of Gender-Exclusive
Language Use
The generic use of masculine forms prevailing in many lan-
guages has far-reaching consequences in restricting the
degree of female visibility. Gender-exclusive language has
these broad, powerful effects in part because it is a relatively
subtle means of conveying information about women and
men. For example, female job applicants perceived a lack of
fit between themselves and potential position openings when
job advertisements (e.g., Bem & Bem, 1973) and job inter-
views (Stout & Dasgupta, 2011) used masculine forms (e.g.,
English: he/masc.; German: Lehrer/teacher, masc.) rather
than gender-inclusive expressions (e.g., English: he and she/
masc. and fem.; German: Lehrer oder Lehrerin/teacher, masc.
or teacher, fem.). Also, in public opinion polls (Stahlberg &
Sczesny, 2001) and court decisions (Hamilton, Hunter, &
Stuart-Smith, 1992), masculine formulations may bias out-
comes in favor of men to the disadvantage of women.
Furthermore, Italian language descriptions of occupations
(e.g., lawyer) with feminized terms implied lower compe-
tence than gender-inclusive or masculine terms (Merkel,
Maass, & Frommelt, 2012). Some researchers have argued
that the use of gender-exclusive language (e.g., using he to
indicate he or she) represents a kind of group-based ostracism
(Stout & Dasgupta, 2011). Specifically, in reaction to gender-
exclusive language (he) during a mock job interview, women
experienced a lower sense of belonging, less motivation, and
less expected identification than women exposed to gender-
inclusive (he or she) or gender-neutral (one) language.
Due to the close link between language and cognitive rep-
resentations, language use activates associated cognitive
concepts and schemata and may thereby perpetuate stereo-
typical thinking and expectations (cf. Stahlberg, Braun,
Irmen, & Sczesny, 2007). For instance, McConnell and Fazio
(1996) found that perceivers (especially those who reported
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF HARTFORD on July 13, 2015
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 41(7)
more traditional gender-role beliefs) interpreted a social tar-
get’s personality as more masculine in response to occupa-
tional titles with a man-suffix (e.g., chairman) than in
response to a suffixless term (e.g., chair) and as less mascu-
line in reaction to occupational titles with a person-suffix
(e.g., chairperson). In these ways, the use of gendered pro-
nouns and nouns conveys meaning about the persons
involved and their likely dispositions.
Use of Gender-Inclusive Language
Research to date on the determinants of gender-inclusive lan-
guage use has emphasized the gender-related belief systems
that can lead to people to adopt certain language forms. For
example, male and female college students possessing more
favorable attitudes toward gender equality also expressed
greater favorability toward using language terms such as
“flight attendant” instead of “stewardess” (Douglas & Sutton,
2014; Parks & Roberton, 2004, 2008; Sarrasin, Gabriel, &
Gygax, 2012).
In other research, gender ideologies proved to guide
actual language use. For example, Rubin, Greene, and
Schneider’s (1994) participants wrote letters in response to a
fictional university proposal for mandatory drug testing, and
those possessing a stronger masculine gender-role orientation
were more likely to use gender-exclusive language. Other
research has linked sexist attitudes to language use. In illus-
tration, Jacobson and Insko’s (1985) participants completed
sentences by choosing among pronouns and nouns (e.g., he,
she, he/she, the lawyer, the client). Participants with stronger
sexist attitudes chose non-sexist pronouns less frequently
than participants with less sexist attitudes. In another demon-
stration, Swim et al.’s (2004) participants described how they
would act as the main character in three scenarios involving a
nurse, a business executive, and a professor, and those who
endorsed modern sexist beliefs used more sexist pronouns to
refer to the persons in these stories. Given that men score
higher on instrumentality and on sexist attitudes, men also
have been found to use more masculine generic pronouns
than do women (Pauwels, 2003; Rubin et al., 1994).
Taken together, this research indicates that individual dif-
ferences in gendered belief systems, including gender-role
identity and the endorsement of modern sexist beliefs, are
associated with the use of gender-inclusive language. In fact,
sexist language has been considered an example of subtle
sexism (Swim et al., 2004) and is known to contribute to
gender stereotyping (e.g., Maass & Arcuri, 1996).
Overview of Present Research and
Hypotheses
The present research investigated how people deliberately or
habitually act on their beliefs about gender so as to use or not
use gender-inclusive language. We focused on the use of per-
sonal nouns, which is a central issue in debates about language
Sczesny et al.
and gender (e.g., chairman vs. chairperson vs. chair).
Typically, forms of personal nouns are considered gender-
inclusive when they prompt a balanced representation of
men and women.
Suggesting that people carry out their gender ideologies by
making deliberate decisions to use gender-inclusive language,
Cralley and Ruscher (2005) found that non-sexist men used
gender-inclusive language primarily when they were not cog-
nitively busy with another task. Thus, such language use
appeared to require explicit, intentional decision making.
Following Fishbein and Ajzen’s (2011) classic model of
action control, people deliberately form intentions to use gen-
der-inclusive language when they (a) hold favorable attitudes
toward the behavior, (b) perceive supportive subjective
norms, in which significant others favor this behavior, and (c)
perceive high behavioral control or ease in performing the
behavior. Gendered belief systems, including sexist beliefs,
represent broad background factors that contribute to the atti-
tudes and social norms that guide behavioral intentions.
Action itself is then the product of favorable intentions along
with high perceived control over the behavior.
Language use also may be guided by less deliberate
mechanisms, perhaps activated habitually by environmental
cues (Ouellette & Wood, 1998; Verplanken & Aarts 1999).
Habits form as people repeatedly perform the same behavior
and learn associations between the behavior and recurring
features of the context, including physical location, time of
day, and preceding actions in a sequence. In Triandis’s (1977)
terms, they are situation-specific learned sequences of acts
that have become automatic and, therefore, require little
mental effort (see Gardner & Tang, 2014; Wood & Neal,
2007). Habitual forms of speech could develop through imi-
tation and shared social norms or could initially be practiced
deliberately until they become habitual. Regardless of their
origins, once habits have formed, they tend to be brought to
mind automatically and to be performed with minimal input
from intentions and attitudes (Neal, Wood, Labrecque, &
Lally, 2012; Neal, Wood, Wu, & Kurlander, 2011).
In two studies,1 we evaluated the role of deliberate and
habitual factors in predicting the use of gender-inclusive lan-
guage. Study 1 was designed to explore the deliberate and
more habitual mechanisms contributing to language use. We
expected that favorable attitudes, supportive subjective
norms, and a higher degree of perceived behavioral control
would predict more favorable intentions and stronger habits,
which, in turn, would increase use of gender-inclusive lan-
guage. This proposed mediational model advances theory by
providing novel insight into the psychological pathways by
which people spontaneously choose language terms.
Study 2 addresses the broader issue of how people’s gen-
der ideologies guide their language use through the deliber-
ate and habitual mechanisms identified in Study 1. We
evaluated these ideas by including scales assessing a variety
of sexist ideologies (i.e., modern sexism, Swim, Aikin, Hall,
& Hunter, 1995; neosexism, Tougas, Brown, Beaton, & Joly,
1995; ambivalent sexism, Glick & Fiske, 1996). Following
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF HARTFORD on July 13, 2015
945
Fishbein and Ajzen’s (2011) reasoning, these belief systems
should contribute to people’s intentions to use gender-inclu-
sive language because they influence specific beliefs about
the outcomes of using such language terms. In addition, broad
social ideologies might influence the habits people form
because they influence the behaviors that people repeat in
stable contexts. Thus, we anticipated that these sexist beliefs
would indirectly influence gender-inclusive language use by
affecting attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioral control,
which, in turn, would influence intentions and habits (i.e., fre-
quency of past behavior and experienced automaticity).
Study 1
Method
Participants. All participants were German native speakers
from Switzerland and Germany, either living in Switzerland
or Germany. Both samples were recruited via mailing lists,
and the study was conducted online.
At Time 1, the questionnaire was finished by 438 Swiss
and German participants (1,083 opened the study’s website;
575 started the questionnaire). Altogether, 438 participants
finished the questionnaire at Time 1. At Time 2 (2 weeks
later), all participants who had finished the first question-
naire were provided with the link to answer the second ques-
tionnaire. At Time 2, 346 participants answered the survey.
From this sample, 45 participants were excluded because
their responses could not be tied to their Time 1 scores; 14
because they either were non-native German speakers, do
not live in Switzerland/Germany, or passed their school years
in a non-German speaking country; and 9 participants
because they had identified the aim of the study.
The final sample consisted of 278 participants (206
females, 72 males; age range = 15-60 years; M = 29.99; SD
= 9.59; men: M = 32.29, SD = 10.35; women: M = 29.18,
SD = 9.20). The sample consisted of 46% employed per-
sons, 49% students, and 5% unreported occupation. The
response rate was 27% (278 of 1,083 who opened the
website).
Gender-inclusive language use. To measure the use of gen-
der-inclusive language, we used a fill-in-the-blanks task:
Participants received 10 short texts in which some nouns
were represented only by the initial letter. Empty lines were
provided in the margin to write down the missing words.
This method was chosen to avoid inferences about the length
of the missing words. Participants were first provided with a
practice text with already filled-in blanks and then with the
10 texts. One example of such a text reads as follows:
In Switzerland those c. . . . a. . . . designated as entitled to vote
who possess certain political rights. In most cases suffrage
coincides with the right to vote. Citizens of age who are at least
18 years old and are Swiss nationals a. . . . entitled to vote. The
voting papers are sent via p. . . . to the respective households.
(Solution: citizens, are, are, post)
946
In each text, one of the four blanks required a personal
noun, which could be used either in the masculine form
(Wähler/voters, masc., Bürger/citizens, masc., Schüler/stu-
dents, masc., Redakteure/editors, masc., Sportler/athletes,
masc. Mitarbeiter/colleagues, masc., Teilnehmer/partici-
pants, masc., Feuerwehrmänner/firemen, masc., Freunde/
friends, masc., Angestellte/employees, masc.) or in a gender-
inclusive form (such as Wähler und Wählerinnen /voters,
masc. and voters, fem.).
To avoid contextual influences, the scenario contexts
were neutral regarding gender-related information and were
equally typical for women and men (data on distributions of
women and men in the respective roles were taken from
www.bfs.admin.ch). The three other gaps in each text served
as distracters and required different word classes (e.g., verbs,
adjectives).
We coded participants’ answers as representing either
gender-inclusive language (i.e., feminine-masculine word-
pairs, neutralization) or gender-exclusive language (i.e.,
masculine forms). These codes were based on published
guidelines for gender-fair language (e.g., Braun, 2000;
Schweizerische Bundeskanzlei, 2009). Thus, the use of gen-
der-inclusive language across all texts varied from 0 to 10
gender-inclusive nouns.
Deliberate predictors of language use. To introduce the
attitude object of gender-inclusive language, different pos-
sibilities of referring to persons in German were described,
such as masculine generics (e.g., die Lehrer/teachers, masc.),
masculine-feminine word-pairs (e.g., Lehrer und Lehrerin-
nen/teachers, masc. and teachers, fem.), or neutral forms
(e.g., person). Deliberative predictors, namely, attitudes,
norms, and perceived control, were assessed with 22 ran-
domly ordered items.2 All items were answered on rating
scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree). A factor analysis (principal axis) using direct obli-
min rotation (see Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan,
1999) revealed that all items loaded on one of the four pre-
dicted factors (i.e., >.30 on one of the factors; see supple-
mental material).
Positive attitudes toward gender-inclusive language were
measured by five items (adopted from earlier studies, e.g.,
Knussen, Yule, MacKenzie, & Wells, 2004): (a) “It is person-
ally important to me to use gender-inclusive language,” (b)
“I don’t like gender-inclusive language,” (c) “My feelings
toward gender-inclusive language are positive,” (d) “I am
interested in gender-inclusive language,” and (e) “Gender-
inclusive language is an issue of personal importance for
me.” Four additional items assessed if gender-inclusive lan-
guage was something that (f) “means to not discriminate
against women,” (g) “does not convey any advantages
(reverse coded),” (h) “produces more gender equality.” After
removing one item (i.e., “makes text cumbersome and
impairs readability”) that did not load unambiguously on the
factors, the remaining eight items were reliable (α = .92) and
were combined into a single scale.
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF HARTFORD on July 13, 2015
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 41(7)
Descriptive and injunctive norms were measured by five
items (adopted from Smith et al., 2008), and the factor analy-
sis did not allow us to discriminate between these. It revealed
one positive and one negative factor including ratings of
“Most of the persons who are important to me” (a) “use gen-
der-inclusive language,” (b) “endorse gender-inclusive lan-
guage,” (c) “disapprove of gender-inclusive language
(reverse coded),” (d) “prefer that I use gender-inclusive lan-
guage,” and (e) “disapprove of me using gender-inclusive
language (reverse coded).” These were combined into one
scale that captured positive norms (α = .88; three items; items
a, b, and d) and another that captured negative norms
(α = .69; two items; items c and e).
Perceived behavioral control was measured with seven
items (adopted from Ajzen & Madden, 1986; Smith et al.,
2008) tapping whether gender-inclusive language (a) “is dif-
ficult for me to use,” (b) “is complicated to use,” (c) ”is com-
plicated and impairs writing and speaking for me,” (d) “is
something I can’t use under time pressure,” (e) “would be
easier to use if there were information about the benefits of
its use,” (f) “would be easier for me to use if there were easy
rules and spelling,” and (g) “would be difficult for me if it
were an obligation.” After recoding, the items were compiled
into a composite score in which higher numbers reflect
greater control (α = .79). One additional item (i.e., “I can use
gender-inclusive language if I want to do so”) was not
included because it did not load substantially (>.30) on the
factors.
Intention to use gender-inclusive language was assessed
with three items: “Gender-inclusive language is something
that” (a) “I would use in the future,” (b) “I would use in the
future in written language,” and (c) “I would use orally in the
future.” Reliability was good (α = .89), and these items were
compiled into a single score.
Habitual predictors of language use. Frequency of past
behavior was assessed with the following two items: (a) “I
always used gender-inclusive language in the past months”
and (b) “I never used it in the past months (reverse coded).”
Experienced automaticity was assessed by adapting 10
of the original 12 items from the self-reported habit index
(Verplanken & Orbell, 2003; see also Gardner, de Bruijn,
& Lally, 2011, for a review and meta-analysis of applica-
tions of the self-report habit index). Participants indicated
whether “Gender-inclusive language is something that” (a)
“I use automatically,” (b) “I do without thinking,” (c) “would
require effort not to do,” (d) “belongs to my routine,” (e) “I
start doing before I realize I’m doing it,” (f) “I would find it
hard not to do,” (g) “I have no need to think about doing,”
and (h) “is typically me.”
A factor analysis (principal axis) with direct oblimin rota-
tion on the 12 habit items confirmed separate factors for fre-
quency of past behavior and for experienced automaticity
(all items loaded >.30 on one of the two factors; see supple-
mental material). Two items (i) “I do frequently” and (j) “I
have been doing for a long time” were excluded because they
Sczesny et al. 947

Table 1. Study 1: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations of Predictors and Use of Gender-Inclusive Language (N = 278).

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Positive attitudes 3.63 1.60 — .56** −.20** .28** .58** .67** .76** .37**
2. Positive norms 3.90 1.54 — −.17** .19** .43** .51** .53** .25**
3. Negative norms 2.31 1.24 — −.13* −.22** −.14* −.23** −.12*
4. Perceived behavioral control 4.48 1.24 — .37** .39** .32** .09
5. Frequency of past behavior 4.75 1.80 — .62** .73** .40**
6. Experienced automaticity 3.23 1.65 — .69** .33**
7. Intention 4.35 1.76 — .41**
8. Gender-inclusive language use 4.55 2.93 —

Note. Scales ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree; higher scores on scales indicate more approval of the respective statement; use of
gender-inclusive language varied from 0 to 10 gender-inclusive personal nouns.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

did not load unambiguously on one factor. Thus, the 2 items
assessing frequency of past behavior had sufficient reliabil-
ity (α = .72) and were combined into a composite score.
Also, the 8 experienced automaticity items showed good
reliability (α = .95), and scores were compiled into a
composite.
Procedure. Study 1 was introduced as a “Survey on Attitudes
Toward Social Communication.” Participants completed two
questionnaires at two time points, separated by a 2-week
interval. Participants first indicated a personal code at the
beginning of each survey.
At Time 1, an explanation of gender-inclusive language
was given (see above). Then all predictors, intention, and
socio-demographic data were assessed.
Time 2 started with a distracter task in which participants
completed a questionnaire regarding attitudes, norms, behav-
ioral control, and so on of social media use (24 items adapted
from the questionnaire on gender-inclusive language use; see
Time 1). Then participants worked on the fill-in-the-blanks
task to assess their gender-inclusive language use. At the end
of Time 2, participants had the possibility to win a voucher
and were thanked. Debriefing was sent to all participants
when the survey was completed.
Results
Descriptive results. The means and standard deviations of all
variables in Study 1 and their correlations are displayed in
Table 1. We did not find any significant gender differences
in these variables (seven t tests for independent samples,
Bonferroni corrected alpha).
On average, participants reported moderately positive
attitudes toward the use of gender-inclusive language along
with moderately positive norms, perceived control, fre-
quency of past use, experienced automaticity, and favorable
intentions. Participants reported low negative norms regard-
ing gender-inclusive language.
On average, participants used gender-inclusive language
forms in about 4 of the 10 texts. No gender-inclusive forms
were used by 3% of the respondents, 11.2% used gender-
inclusive forms once, 20.5% twice, 13.3% three times, 8.3%
four times, 7.2% five times, 4.3% six times, 7.2% seven
times, 11.9% eight times, 10.1% nine times, and 3.2% used
gender-inclusive forms in all 10 blanks.
Predicting gender-inclusive language use. We tested mediation
effects as ways to account for the relations between attitudes,
norms, and perceived behavioral control with gender-inclu-
sive language use. To document which deliberate and habitual
factors—intention, frequency of past behavior, and experi-
enced automaticity—were responsible for carrying effects of
attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioral control to gender-
inclusive language use, we conducted a mediational analysis
by means of structural equation modeling (SEM), which
allowed us to control for potential biases in the estimates due
to measurement error (Kenny, Kashy, & Bolger, 1998). For
the computations, we used Amos 22 (Arbuckle, 2013). The
model was exactly identified (df = 0) and thus had a perfect fit
(chi-square = 0). Estimations were based on the covariance
matrix and the maximum likelihood method.
We predicted the extent of gender-inclusive language at
Time 2 from the predictors—attitudes, norms, perceived
behavioral control—and the mediators—intention, fre-
quency of past behavior, experienced automaticity—assessed
at Time 1. The results of the mediational analysis—standard-
ized values of the coefficients—are displayed in Figure 1.
First, gender-inclusive language use was significantly
predicted by frequency of past behavior (p = .012) and mar-
ginally by intentions (p = .067). Second, we tested for the
significance of mediation using the Sobel Test (Baron &
Kenny, 1986). The results revealed the following indirect
effects on gender-inclusive language use: Attitudes influ-
enced gender-inclusive language use through the frequency
of past behavior (p = .017) and marginally through intentions
(p = .069). The effects of positive norms on gender-inclusive

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF HARTFORD on July 13, 2015

948
Positive
Attitudes
-.07
Positive
Norms
Negative
Norms
Perceived
Behavioral
Control
Figure 1. Study 1: Mediation model for gender-inclusive language use.
Note. Significant paths are indicated as lines (p < .05), marginally significant paths in broken lines (p < .10).
language use were marginally mediated by frequency of past
behavior (p = .085). Finally, the effects of perceived behav-
ioral control on gender-inclusive language use were signifi-
cantly mediated by frequency of past behavior (p = .029).
Discussion
Study 1 revealed that gender-inclusive language is a product
of both deliberate and habitual factors. Our design separated
by 2 weeks the assessments of these psychological predictors
from actual language use, allowing us to draw especially clear
conclusions about the ways that these factors guide language
choice. As anticipated, participants were more likely to use
gender-inclusive language at the 2-week follow-up session
when they had used it frequently in the past and thus had
formed language-use habits. They also used gender-inclusive
nouns (marginally) more often when they had expressed
explicit intentions to do so. Surprisingly, experienced auto-
maticity, which reflects perceptions of how mindlessly par-
ticipants use gender-inclusive language, was not a predictor
of language use, but instead, the effects were largely sub-
sumed by the other deliberate and habitual predictors. Thus,
this language form had multiple determinants, reflecting that
participants used gender-inclusive language partially in a
mindless way and partially by making deliberate decisions.
Given the broadly deleterious effects of gender-exclusive lan-
guage that we identified in the introduction to this article,
such deliberate decisions might seem surprising.
To understand the broader motivations behind language
use, Study 2 evaluated the extent to which sexist ideological
beliefs influence language and additionally tracked whether
these effects implicate habitual or intentional mechanisms.
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF HARTFORD on July 13, 2015
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 41(7)
.64
.14 Intention
.11
.43
.18
.13 Frequency of Gender-
.21
-.08 Past Behavior Inclusive
.21 Language Use
.51
.19
Experienced
.22 Automaticity
That is, to what extent do people draw on sexist/non-sexist
beliefs to make deliberate decisions about gender-inclusive
language use and to what extent do these beliefs work
through a more habitual process?
Study 2
Study 2 was designed to replicate our model and evaluate
how the psychological determinants of gender-inclusive lan-
guage emerge from a range of subtle sexism measures, includ-
ing modern sexism, neosexism, and ambivalent sexism. These
measures were designed to reflect the complexities of wom-
en’s contemporary roles: Modern sexism comprises beliefs in
which individuals disavow women’s present-day discrimina-
tion, reject their demands for political and economic power,
and disapprove of policies designed to promote gender equal-
ity (Swim et al., 1995). Neosexism describes the conflict
between egalitarian values and negative feelings toward
women, including the belief that it is important to maintain the
status-quo in women’s and men’s roles (Tougas et al., 1995).
Ambivalent sexism toward women addresses the coexistence
of positive and negative feelings that reflects ambivalence
(Glick & Fiske, 1996). Besides hostile sexism toward women,
benevolent sexism is defined as “a set of interrelated attitudes
toward women that are sexist in terms of viewing women ste-
reotypically and in restricted roles, but that are subjectively
positive in feeling tone” (Glick & Fiske, 1996, p. 491). All
sexism measures are well established, reliable, and valid, and
they all correlate with traditional measures of attitudes toward
women’s rights and responsibilities, but each captures unique
aspects above and beyond traditional measures of overt sex-
ism (see Kite, 2001, for an overview).
Sczesny et al.
Method
Participants. Study 2 was also conducted online with partici-
pants who were native German speakers from Switzerland and
Germany, recruited via mailing lists. At Time 1, 274 partici-
pants completed the questionnaire (554 opened the site; 407
started the questionnaire). All participants who had finished the
first questionnaire received the link to answer the second ques-
tionnaire (Time 2, 2 weeks later; for details see Study 1). At
Time 2, 241 participants completed the questionnaire. From
this sample, we excluded 29 participants because we could not
link their data with Time 1 data; 7 participants because they
were non-native German speakers, did not live in Switzerland/
Germany or passed their school years in a non-German speak-
ing country; and 2 participants because they identified the aim
of the study. The final sample consisted of 203 participants
(141 females, 62 males; age range = 18-54 years; M = 25.00;
SD = 6.91; men: M = 24.82, SD = 5.95; women: M = 25.08, SD
= 7.31). Of these, 69% were students, 27% employed persons,
and 5% did not indicate occupation. The response rate was
37% (203 of 554 who opened the study’s website).
Gender-inclusive language use. As in Study 1, we assessed
gender-inclusive language use with same 10 fill-in-the-
blanks items at Time 2.
Deliberate and habitual predictors of language use. The
Time 1 questionnaire included 34 randomly ordered items.
All items were answered on rating scales ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Two factor analyses
(principal axis) with direct oblimin rotation revealed almost
the same results as in Study 1 (see supplemental material).
Thus, we formed scales representing positive attitudes
toward gender-inclusive language (α = .92; 8 items), positive
norms (α = .88; 3 items), negative norms (α = .73; 2 items),
perceived behavioral control (α = .80; 7 items), frequency
of past behavior (3 items; α = .81; in addition to the 2 items
in Study 1 in the present study, the item “I do frequently”
was also included in this scale based on the respective factor
analysis), and experienced automaticity (α = .94; 7 items; in
contrast to Study 1, 2 items were not included because they
loaded substantially on two factors: “That belongs to my rou-
tine” and “I have been doing for a long time”).
Sexist beliefs. We measured sexist beliefs at Time 1 with
41 items, including a German version by Swim, Becker, and
DeCoster (2014) that included the measurement of modern
sexism (8 items; α = .82; Swim et al., 1995), neosexism (11
items; α = .80; Tougas et al., 1995), and ambivalent sexism
(11 items to measure hostile and 11 items to measure benevo-
lent sexism; α = .90; Glick & Fiske, 1996).
Results
Descriptive results. The means and standard deviations of all
variables in Study 2 and their correlations are displayed in
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF HARTFORD on July 13, 2015
949
Table 2. We did not find any significant gender differences
in any of these variables (10 t tests for independent samples,
Bonferroni corrected alpha).
On average, participants reported moderately positive atti-
tudes toward the use of gender-inclusive language, positive
norms, moderately high perceived control, frequent past
behavior, high experienced automaticity, and favorable inten-
tions. Participants also reported relatively low endorsement
of negative norms regarding gender-inclusive language.
Participants used gender-inclusive language forms in
about 4 of the 10 texts on average. Specifically, 10.3% of the
respondents did not use any gender-inclusive forms, 25.1%
used gender-inclusive forms once, 16.3% twice, 10.8% three
times, 9.4% four times, 4.4% five times, 2% six times, 4.9%
seven times, 5.4% eight times, 8.9% nine times, and 2.5%
used gender-inclusive forms for all 10 blanks (N = 203).
Predicting gender-inclusive language use. We again used
SEM (see Study 1) to predict the extent of gender-inclusive
language at Time 2 from the predictors—attitudes, norms,
perceived behavioral control—and the mediators—inten-
tion, frequency of past behavior, experienced automaticity—
assessed at Time 1. The model was exactly identified (df =
0) and thus had a perfect fit (chi-square = 0). The results of
the mediational analysis—standardized values of the coef-
ficients—are displayed in Figure 2.
First, as hypothesized, language use was significantly
predicted by intentions (p = .021) and marginally by fre-
quency of past behavior (p = .093). In addition, positive atti-
tudes directly predicted the gender-inclusive language use
(p = .005). The Sobel tests revealed that effects of attitudes
on gender-inclusive language use were significantly medi-
ated by intentions (p = .022). Also, the effects of positive
norms on gender-inclusive language use were predicted by
intentions (p = .043). In this study, frequency of past behav-
ior was not predicted by the other variables in the model.
The impact of sexist beliefs on gender-inclusive language
use. The three sexist belief measures—modern sexism, neo-
sexism, and ambivalent sexism (measured at Time 1)—cor-
related significantly with gender-inclusive language use at
Time 2 (ranging from −.32 to −.43), replicating previous
work linking sexist beliefs to gender-inclusive language
(Swim et al., 2004).
To identify which of the potential mediational variables—
attitudes, norms, perceived behavioral control—were
responsible for carrying the effects of sexist beliefs to inten-
tions, frequency of past behavior, and experienced automa-
ticity, and thus in turn for guiding gender-inclusive language
use, we conducted another mediational analysis by means of
SEM that included the three sexist beliefs as predictor vari-
ables. The model was again exactly identified (df = 0) and
thus had a perfect fit (chi-square = 0). Estimations were
based on the covariance matrix and the maximum likelihood
method. The results of this mediational analysis—standard-
ized values of the coefficients—are displayed in Figure 3.
950 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 41(7)

Table 2. Study 2: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations of Predictors, and Use of Gender-Inclusive Language (N = 203).

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Positive attitudes 3.62 1.73 — .57** −.28** .21** .65** .66** −.47** −.45** −.35** .79** .54**
2. Positive norms 3.49 1.52 — −.34** .14* .59** .51** −.23** −.27** −.34** .60** .39**
3. Negative norms 2.70 1.48 — −.20** −.29** −.19** .15* .17* .10 −.28** −.13
4. Perceived behavioral control 4.20 1.28 — .35** .35** −.08 −.10 −.10 .24** .19**
5. Frequency of past behavior 3.92 1.75 — .68** −.33** −.36** −.31** .77** .50**
6. Experienced automaticity 2.74 1.50 — −.23** −.20** −.19** .69** .40**
7. Modern sexism 3.30 1.03 — .64** .39** −.36** −.32**
8. Neosexism 2.37 0.80 — .56** −.38** −.34**
9. Ambivalent sexism 3.10 0.99 — −.32** −.43**
10. Intention 3.87 1.75 — .55**
11. Gender-inclusive language use 3.43 2.99 —

Note. Scales ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree; higher scores on scales indicate more approval of the respective statement; use of
gender-inclusive language varied from 0 to 10 gender-inclusive personal nouns.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Positive
Attitudes .65
Intention
.21

.07 .27
Positive .26
.43
Norms
.31 Gender-
Frequency of .16
Inclusive
Past Behavior
.21 Language Use

Negative .51
Norms .21

Experienced
.23 Automaticity

Perceived
Behavioral
Control

Figure 2. Study 2: Mediation model for gender-inclusive language use.

Note. Significant paths are indicated as lines (p < .05), marginally significant paths in broken lines (p < .10).

First, the results indicated that only ambivalent sexism of
the three sexist beliefs directly predicted gender-inclusive
language use (p < .001). Second, to test whether sexist beliefs
indirectly influenced gender-inclusive language use by
affecting attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioral control,
which in turn influenced intentions and habits, we conducted
serial mediation analyses (Hayes, 2013). We used a boot-
strapping technique with 5,000 iterations and calculated
accelerated confidence intervals (CI 95%).
For all three sexist beliefs, the respective bootstrapping
analysis revealed an indirect effect on gender-inclusive
language use mediated by attitudes and intentions—modern
sexism: −.37, CI 95% = [−.67, −.15]; neosexism: −.44, CI
95% = [−.81, −.20]; ambivalent sexism: −.26, CI 95% =
[−.49, −.11]. In addition, the bootstrapping analysis of the
impact of ambivalent sexism on gender-inclusive language
use was mediated directly by attitudes, −.21, CI 95% =
[−.52, −.01]. The impact of ambivalent sexism on gender-
inclusive language use was mediated by positive norms,
which in turn predicted intention, −.25, CI 95% = [−.40,
−.15], as well as directly by intention;−.21, CI 95%
= [−.52, −.01].

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF HARTFORD on July 13, 2015

Sczesny et al.
-.30
Positive
-.18 Attitudes
Modern
Sexism -.13
Positive
-.27
Norms
Neosexism
Negative
Norms
Ambivalent
Sexism
Perceived
Behavioral
Control
Figure 3. Study 2: Mediation model for the impact of sexist beliefs on gender-inclusive language use.
Note. The residuals of the mediated variables are correlated but, for the sake of clarity, not indicated. Significant paths are indicated as lines (p < .05),
marginally significant paths in broken lines (p < .10).
Discussion
Replicating the information-processing findings in Study 1,
intentions and frequency of past behavior contributed to the
frequency of gender-inclusive language use. That is, our par-
ticipants used gender-inclusive language to the extent that
they explicitly formed intentions to do so and (marginally) to
the extent that they had repeatedly, habitually done so in the
past. Echoing Study 1, the measure of experienced automa-
ticity did not relate to language use.
Our central question was the extent to which broader gen-
dered ideologies (Jacobson & Insko, 1985; Swim et al.,
2004) influenced gender-inclusive language use through
explicit, deliberate reasoning processes or through the less
thoughtful, habitual route. The results clearly targeted delib-
erate decision making. That is, participants with stronger
sexist beliefs had less favorable attitudes toward using gen-
der-inclusive language (and believed that others disapprove
them). Given these attitudes and norms, these participants
formed less favorable intentions to use gender-inclusive
language. As a result of these deliberate decisions, they used
such language forms less often on the behavioral measure.
Thus, gender ideologies directed future speech patterns by
influencing individual’s explicit decisions. All three sexist
beliefs followed the anticipated sequence in which attitudes
predicted intentions that predicted use. Interestingly, of all
three sexist beliefs, ambivalent sexism turned out to be the
only ideology that directly predicted language use.
At a general level, these findings provide an answer to the
question of how people continue to use sexist terminology
despite the clear research evidence of deleterious effects for
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF HARTFORD on July 13, 2015
951
.64
.21 Intention
.07
.21
.39 .25
.31 Frequency of Gender-
Past Behavior Inclusive
.21
Language Use
.57
.22
Experienced -.26
.23 Automaticity
women. In large part, people who hold sexist beliefs make
deliberate decisions to use language that perpetuates gender
stereotyping and supports patriarchy. Participants in our
research were essentially creating the gendered world that
they endorsed in their ideological beliefs.
General Discussion
Understanding the use of gender-inclusive language is of
considerable social importance, given the role of reformed
language in reducing gender stereotyping and increasing the
visibility of women (Stahlberg et al., 2007). Although it is
well documented that gender-inclusive language use is
linked to sexist beliefs and attitudes (Douglas & Sutton,
2014; Jacobson & Insko, 1985; Swim et al., 2004), the pres-
ent research identified the cognitive and motivational pro-
cesses by which people use this language in spontaneous
social communication.
Our studies yielded two clear findings. First, we provided
a broad information-processing model outlining the psycho-
logical mechanisms that promote use of gender-inclusive
language. Some participants in our studies mindlessly used
sexist language forms as they had in the past. Such habitual
language users may be especially likely to rely on whatever
is the standard form without considering the possibility of
alternative language forms and their implications for social
change. Other participants used or failed to use gender-inclu-
sive language more deliberately and were acting on their
intentions to use or not to use this language form, along with
their positive or negative attitudes toward it.
952
A second important finding from this research involves
insight into the mechanisms by which sexist ideological
beliefs guide language use. These beliefs worked exclusively
through deliberate reasoning. That is, participants who
endorsed modern sexism, neosexism, or ambivalent sexism
failed to use gender-inclusive language because of their neg-
ative attitudes toward using it along with their intentions not
to use it. Such individuals might deliberately avoid using
gender-inclusive language because they viewed it as a kind
of oppressive political correctness, or they might claim
(incorrectly, given social science evidence) that is unneces-
sary because the masculine generic includes both women and
men. Thus, sexist individuals do not fail to use gender-inclu-
sive language just because they cannot be bothered to adopt
new terminology differing from standard masculine forms.
Instead, they have made explicit choices not to vary from
language forms that reflect the male norm and in which
women are relatively invisible.
Across our studies, the baseline use of gender-inclusive
language among our German and Swiss participants was
quite low. The majority of participants still used masculine
generics more frequently than gender-inclusive forms.
Aggregated across the heterogeneous samples in the present
research, masculine generics consistently predominated. In
line with this behavior, participants expressed only moder-
ately positive attitudes, norms, and intentions with respect to
using gender-inclusive language. That is, in Study 1, inten-
tions were slightly above the midpoint on the scale, and in
Study 2, they were slightly below the scale midpoint.
Furthermore, our participants reported only moderately
strong habits in the form of past behavior frequency, along
with modest levels of experienced automaticity of use of
gender-fair language. This limited endorsement and past use
of inclusive language terms is consistent with the continued
gender disparities in women’s access to resources and oppor-
tunities in the economy, education, health, and politics. On
the Global Gender Gap Index (World Economic Forum,
2013), no country achieved complete equality, with
Germany’s score of .76 and Switzerland’s .77 on a scale from
1 (complete equality) to 0 (inequality). The evidence of sex-
ist language-use patterns in the present research is consistent
with the continued prevalence of patriarchy in the countries
in our sample.
Finally, our evidence that gender-inclusive language
arises from both deliberate and habitual processes provides
insight into potential mechanisms of change. That is, success-
ful interventions to increase such language use could focus on
simple repetition of non-sexist language terms so that these
become established habits (Wood & Rünger, in press; Koeser,
Kuhn, & Sczesny, 2014). In addition, interventions could
address people’s understanding of the consequences of gender-
inclusive language as a means of altering explicit intentions to
use it (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2011; Koeser & Sczesny, 2014).
Interventions that change deliberate decisions not to use such
language terms are especially appropriate for addressing lan-
guage use of people who endorse sexist ideologies.
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF HARTFORD on July 13, 2015
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 41(7)
Acknowledgments
We thank Aline Amacker and Sara Matthies for their help in con-
ducting this research and Friederike Braun, Michèle Kaufmann, and
Ulrich Orth for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this
manuscript.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This
research was conducted within the Marie Curie Initial Training
Network: Language, Cognition, & Gender (ITN LCG) funded by
the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme
(FP7/2007-2013) under Grant Agreement 237907 (www.itn-lcg.eu).
Notes
1. We also conducted a preliminary study providing initial evi-
dence of the deliberate and habitual factors involved in use of
gender-inclusive language. Because these findings were largely
repeated in Study 1, for brevity, we do not discuss them further.
2. Participants also rated three additional items to capture self-
identity (e.g., “I’m the type of person who thinks about the
effect of using gender-inclusive language,” adopted from Terry,
Hogg, & White, 1999). When including these items in the factor
analysis, they loaded on the same factor as the attitude items. As
the self-identity items are not technically attitude items and the
results were the same without including these items in the atti-
tude measure, we reported all analyses with the attitude measure
without the three self-identity items in the present article.
Supplemental Material
The online supplemental material is available at http://pspb.
sagepub.com/supplemental.
References
Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed
behavior: Attitudes, intentions and perceived behavioral con-
trol. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 453-474.
doi:10.1016/0022-1031(86)90045-4
American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication man-
ual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.).
Washington, DC: Author.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2013). Amos 22 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: IBM.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator vari-
able distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,
strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.51.6.1173
Bem, S. L., & Bem, D. L. (1973). Does sex-biased job advertising
“aid and abet” sex discrimination? Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 3, 6-18. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1973.tb01290.x
Braun, F. (2000). Mehr Frauen in die Sprachen. Leitfaden zur geschlech-
tergerechten Formulierung [More women into language. Guideline
for gender-fair formulation]. Kiel: Ministerium für Justiz, Frauen,
Jugend und Familie des Landes Schleswig-Holstein.
Sczesny et al.
Cacciari, C., & Padovani, R. (2007). Further evidence on gender
stereotype priming in language: Semantic facilitation and inhi-
bition on Italian role nouns. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28,
277-293. doi:10.1017/S0142716407070142
Carreiras, M., Garnham, A., Oakhill, J. V., & Cain, K. (1996).
The use of stereotypical gender information in construct-
ing a mental model: Evidence from English and Spanish.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 639-663.
doi:10.1080/027249896392531
Cralley, E. L., & Ruscher, J. B. (2005). Lady, girl, female, or
woman? Sexism and cognitive busyness predict use of gender-
biased nouns. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24,
300-314. doi:10.1177/0261927X05278391
Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2014). “A giant leap for mankind”
but what about women? The role of system-justifying ideolo-
gies in predicting attitudes toward sexist language. Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, 33, 667-680. doi:10.1177/
0261927X14538638
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E.
J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in
psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272-299.
doi:10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2011). Predicting and changing behav-
ior: A reasoned action approach. New York, NY: Psychology
Press.
Gardner, B., de Bruijn, G. J., & Lally, P. (2011). A systematic
review and meta-analysis of applications of the self-report habit
index to nutrition and physical activity behaviours. Annals of
Behavioral Medicine, 42, 174-187. doi:10.1007/s12160-011-
9282-0
Gardner, B., & Tang, V. (2014). Reflecting on non-reflective
action: An exploratory think-aloud study of self-report habit
measures. British Journal of Health Psychology, 19, 258-273.
doi:10.1111/bjhp.12060
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism
Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
Hamilton, M. C., Hunter, B., & Stuart-Smith, S. (1992). Jury
instructions worded in the masculine generic: Can a woman
claim self-defence when “he” is threatened? In J. C. Christer
& D. Howard (Eds.), New directions in feminist psychology:
Practice, theory and research (pp. 169-178). New York, NY:
Springer.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and
conditional process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Irmen, L. (2007). What’s in a (role) name? Formal and concep-
tual aspects of comprehending personal nouns. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 36, 431-456. doi:10.1007/s10936-
007-9053-z
Jacobson, M. B., & Insko, W. R., Jr. (1985). Use of non-sexist pro-
nouns as a function of one’s feminist orientation. Sex Roles, 13,
1-7. doi:10.1007/BF00287456
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in
social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey
(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 233-
265). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Kite, M. E. (2001). Changing times, changing gender roles: Who do
we want women and men to be? In R. Unger (Ed.), Handbook
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF HARTFORD on July 13, 2015
953
of the psychology of women and gender (pp. 215-227). New
York, NY: Wiley.
Knussen, C., Yule, F., MacKenzie, J., & Wells, M. (2004). An
analysis of intentions to recycle household waste: The roles
of past behaviour, perceived habit, and perceived lack of
facilities. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 237-246.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2003.12.001
Koeser, S., Kuhn, E. A., & Sczesny, S. (2014). Just reading? How
gender-fair language triggers readers’ use of gender-fair forms.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1177/0261927X14561119
Koeser, S., & Sczesny, S. (2014). Promoting gender-fair language:
The impact of arguments on language use, attitudes, and cogni-
tions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 548-
560. doi:10.1177/0261927X14541280
Maass, A., & Arcuri, L. (1996). Language and stereotyping. In C.
N. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Stereotypes and
stereotyping (pp. 193-226). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
McConnell, A. R., & Fazio, R. H. (1996). Women as men and
people: Effects of gender-marked language. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1004-1013.
doi:10.1177/01461672962210003
Merkel, E., Maass, A., & Frommelt, L. (2012). Shielding women
against status loss: The masculine form and its alternatives
in the Italian language. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 31, 311-320. doi:10.1177/0261927X12446599
Neal, D. T., Wood, W., Labrecque, J. S., & Lally, P. (2012). How
do habits guide behavior? Perceived and actual triggers of hab-
its in daily life. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48,
492-498. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.011
Neal, D. T., Wood, W., Wu, M., & Kurlander, D. (2011). The pull of
the past: When do habits persist despite conflict with motives?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1428-1437.
doi:10.1177/0146167211419863
Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in every-
day life: The multiple processes by which past behavior pre-
dicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 54-74.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.1.54
Parks, J. B., & Roberton, M. A. (2004). Attitudes toward women
mediate the gender effect on attitudes toward sexist language.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 233-239. doi:10.1111/
j.1471-6402.2004.00140.x
Parks, J. B., & Roberton, M. A. (2008). Generation gaps in atti-
tudes toward sexist/nonsexist language. Journal of Language
and Social Psychology, 27, 276-283. doi:10.1177/02619
27X08317956
Pauwels, A. (2003). Linguistic sexism and feminist linguistic activ-
ism. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The handbook of
language and gender (pp. 550-570). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Rubin, D. L., Greene, K., & Schneider, D. (1994). Adopting gen-
der-inclusive language reforms: Diachronic and synchronic
variation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13,
91-114. doi:10.1177/0261927X94132001
Sarrasin, O., Gabriel, U., & Gygax, P. (2012). Sexism and attitudes
toward gender-neutral language: The case of English, French,
and German. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 71, 113-124.
doi:10.1024/1421-0185/a000078
Schweizerische Bundeskanzlei. (2009). Geschlechtergerechte
Sprache. Leitfaden zum geschlechtergerechten Formulieren
954
im Deutschen [Gender-fair language. Guideline for gender-fair
formulation in German]. Retrieved from http://www.bk.admin.
ch/dokumentation/sprachen/04915/05313/index.html
Smith, J. R., Terry, D. J., Manstead, A. S. R., Louis, W. R.,
Kotterman, D., & Wolfs, J. (2008). The attitude-behavior rela-
tionship in consumer conduct: The role of norms, past behav-
ior, and self-identity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 148,
311-333. doi:10.3200/SOCP.148.3.311-334
Stahlberg, D., Braun, F., Irmen, L., & Sczesny, S. (2007).
Representation of the sexes in language. In K. Fiedler (Ed.),
Social communication. A volume in the series frontiers of
social psychology (pp. 163-187). New York, NY: Psychology
Press.
Stahlberg, D., & Sczesny, S. (2001). Effekte des generischen
Maskulinums und alternativer Sprachformen auf den gedankli-
chen Einbezug von Frauen [Effects of masculine generics
and alternative linguistic forms on the cognitive inclusion
of women]. Psychologische Rundschau, 52, 131-140.
doi:10.1026//0033-3042.52.3.131
Stout, J. G., & Dasgupta, N. (2011). When he doesn’t mean you:
Gender-exclusive language as ostracism. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 3, 757-769. doi:10.1177/0146167211406434
Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995).
Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199-214.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.199
Swim, J. K., Becker, J. C., & DeCoster, J. (2014). Higher order
structures for contemporary measures of sexist beliefs.
Manuscript in preparation.
Swim, J. K., Mallett, R., & Stangor, C. (2004). Understanding sub-
tle sexism: Detection and use of sexist language. Sex Roles, 51,
117-128. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000037757.731.06
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF HARTFORD on July 13, 2015
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 41(7)
Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & White, K. M. (1999). The theory of
planned behaviour: Self-identity, social identity and group
norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 225-244.
doi:10.1348/014466699164149
Tougas, F., Brown, R., Beaton, A. M., & Joly, S. (1995).
Neosexism: Plus ça change, plus c’est pareil. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 842-849.
doi:10.1177/0146167295218007
Triandis, H. C. (1977). Interpersonal behaviour. Monterey, CA:
Brooks.
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Gentile, B. (2012). Male and
female pronoun use in US books reflects women’s status, 1900-
2008. Sex Roles, 67, 488-493. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0194-7
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
(1999). Guidelines on gender-neutral language. Paris,
France: Author. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/
images/0011/001149/114950mo.pdf
Verplanken, B., & Aarts, H. (1999). Habit, attitude, and planned
behavior: Is habit an empty construct or an interesting case
of goal-directed automaticity? European Review of Social
Psychology, 10, 101-134. doi:10.1080/14792779943000035
Verplanken, B., & Orbell, S. (2003). Reflections of past behavior:
A self-report index of habit strength. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 33, 1313-1330. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.
tb01951.x
Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2007). A new look at habits and the
habit-goal interface. Psychological Review, 114, 843-863.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.843
Wood, W., & Rünger, D. (in press). The psychology of habit.
Annual Review of Psychology.
World Economic Forum. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.
weforum.org/videos/global-gender-gap-report-2013