Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 19, Issue 11–12, pp 785–799 | Cite as

Using masculine generics: Does generic he increase male bias in the user's imagery?

  • Mykol C. Hamilton
Article

Abstract

Previous research has shown that experimenter-presented masculine generics can create male bias in the gender content of subjects' imagery. The present study tests experimentally whether subjects' own use of masculine generics has a similar effect on their imagery. College student subjects were induced to complete sentence fragments using masculine or unbiased generics, then asked to describe their imagery for each sentence and to give a first name to fit the person they visualized for each sentence. These dependent measures were coded for gender, and as predicted, analysis of variance showed that male bias was higher in the masculine generic condition than in the unbiased condition. Also as predicted, male subjects were more male-biased overall than were female subjects. The findings are discussed in terms of linguistic relativity (the proposition that language can shape thought), prototypicality (the most typical he is probably a man), and activation of multiple meanings (he has male-specific and gender-neutral denotations, and both may be activated even when the gender-neutral meaning is intended).

Keywords

College Student Social Psychology Generic Condition Male Subject Dependent Measure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bem, S. L., & Bem, D. J. Does sex-biased job advertising “aid and abet” sex discrimination? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1973, 3(1), 6–18.Google Scholar
  2. Berlin, B., & Kay, P. Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  3. Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. W., Clarkson, F. E., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosenkrantz, P. S. Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 1972, 28, 59–78.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, R. Social psychology (2nd ed.). New York: The Free Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  5. Conrad, C. Context effects in sentence comprehension: A study of the subjective lexicon. Memory and Cognition, 1974, 2, 130–138.Google Scholar
  6. Cookston, J. Is English sexist? UCLA Daily Bruin, January 22, 1988, pp. 12, 14–15.Google Scholar
  7. Dell, G. S., McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. The activation of antecedent information during the processing of anaphoric reference in reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1983, 22, 121–132.Google Scholar
  8. Fishman, J. A. The systematization of the Whorfian hypothesis. Behavioral Science, 1960, 5, 323–379.Google Scholar
  9. Fishman, J. A. Whorfianism of the third kind: Ethnolinguistic diversity as a worldwide societal asset. Language in Society, 1982, 2, 1–14.Google Scholar
  10. Hamilton, M. C. A man is a person, a woman is a woman: Evidence for the “people = male” bias. Paper presented at a meeting of the National Women's Studies Association, Minneapolis, MN, June 1988.Google Scholar
  11. Hamilton, M. C., & Henley, N. M. Detrimental consequences of generic masculine usage. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Sacramento, CA, April 1982.Google Scholar
  12. Hamilton, M. C., & Hunter, B. Jury instructions worded in the masculine generic: Can a woman claim self-defense when “he” is threatened? Paper presented at a meeting of the Association for Women in Psychology, Bethesda, MD, March 1988.Google Scholar
  13. Harrison, L., & Passero, R. Sexism in the language of elementary textbooks. Science and Children, 1975, 12(4), 22–25.Google Scholar
  14. Heilman, M. Miss, Mrs., Ms., or none of the above. American Psychologist, 1975, 30(4), 516–518.Google Scholar
  15. Henley, N. M., Gruber, B., & Lerner, L. Effects of sex-biased language on attitudes and self-esteem. Paper presented at a meeting of the Southern California Language and Gender Interest Group, Los Angeles, CA, October 1984.Google Scholar
  16. Lucy, J. A., & Schweder, R. A. Whorf and his critics: Linguistic and non-linguistic influences on color memory. American Anthropologist, 1979, 81(3), 581–615.Google Scholar
  17. MacKay, D. G. Psychology, prescriptive grammar and the pronoun problem. American Psychologist 1980, 35, 444–449.Google Scholar
  18. Martyna, W. Using and understanding the generic masculine: A social psychological approach to language and the sexes. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1978, 39, 3050B.Google Scholar
  19. McCarthy, W. J., Hamilton, M. C., Leaper, C., Pader, E., Rushbrook, S., & Henley, N. M. Social influences on what to call her: “Woman,” “girl,” or “lady.” In L. DeVillers (Chair). Advances in language and gender research. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA, August 1985.Google Scholar
  20. O'Sullivan, C. S., Cole, C. A., & Moseley, S. Content and structure of gender stereotypes. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southwestern Psychological Association, Dallas, TX, April, 1982.Google Scholar
  21. Rosch, E. Linguistic relativity. In A. Silverstein (Ed.), Human communication: Theoretical explanations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1974.Google Scholar
  22. Rosch, E. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology: General, 1975, 104, 192–223.Google Scholar
  23. Sapir, E. The status of linguistics as a science. Language, 1929, 5, 207–214.Google Scholar
  24. Silveira, J. Generic masculine words and thinking. In C. Kramarae (Ed.), The voices and words of women and men. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  25. Warren, R. E., & Warren, N. E. Dual semantic encoding of homographs and homophones embedded in context. Memory and Cognition, 1976, 4, 582–592.Google Scholar
  26. Whorf, B. L. Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (J. B. Carroll, Ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press, 1956.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mykol C. Hamilton
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychology, Young Science HallCentre CollegeDanville

Personalised recommendations