Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 23, Issue 7–8, pp 389–396 | Cite as

Does sexist language reflect personal characteristics?

  • Mark R. McMinn
  • Shannan F. Lindsay
  • Laurel E. Hannum
  • Pamela K. Troyer
Article

Abstract

We investigated whether or not sexist language in written form can be linked to traditional views of sex roles, assertiveness, psychological androgyny, Christian beliefs, or sexist language in oral form. In Experiment 1, undergraduates were given an essay designed to test written sexist language and several pencil-and-paper personality inventories. No relationship between sexist language and interpersonal assertiveness or psychological androgyny was found. However, those who avoided sexist language were less traditional in their sex role perceptions scored lower on a scale of Christian beliefs. In Experient 2, the method of measuring sexist language was expanded by using three essay responses and a brief oral interview. Those who used sexist language in written form were more likely than others to use sexist language in oral form on some responses. Interpretations and implications of the findings are discussed.

Keywords

Social Psychology Personal Characteristic Traditional View Oral Form Personality Inventory 
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. American Psychological Association. (1983). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (3rd ed.). Washington D.C.: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Basset, R. L., Sadler, R. D., Kobischen, E. E., Skiff, D. M., Merrill, I. J., Atwater, B. J., & Livermore, P. W. (1981). The shepherd scale: Separating the sheep from the goats. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 9, 335–351.Google Scholar
  3. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.Google Scholar
  4. Benoit, S. S., & Shell, W. (1985). Can sex-biased communication affect business students' career decisions? Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 28, 123–129.Google Scholar
  5. Bolsinger, S. A., & McMinn, M. R. (1989). Assertiveness training and Christian values. Counseling and Values, 34, 21–32.Google Scholar
  6. Briere, J., & Lanktree, C. (1983). Sex-role related effects of sex bias in language. Sex Roles, 9, 625–632.Google Scholar
  7. Dayhoff, S. A. (1983). Sexist language and person perception: Evaluation of candidates from newspaper articles. Sex Roles, 9, 527–539.Google Scholar
  8. Etaugh, C., & Spandikow, D. B. (1981). Changing attitudes toward women: A longitudinal study of college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 591–594.Google Scholar
  9. Mauger, P. A., & Adkinson, D. R. (1980). Interpersonal Behavior Survey manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
  10. Piper, J. (1989). What's the difference? Wheaton, IL: The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.Google Scholar
  11. Snyder, D. K. (1981). Marital Satisfaction Inventory manual. Los Angles: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
  12. Stratton, M. R. (1987, July/August). Weeding out bias. Currents, pp. 47–51.Google Scholar
  13. Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, (J. B. Carroll, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark R. McMinn
    • 1
  • Shannan F. Lindsay
    • 1
  • Laurel E. Hannum
    • 1
  • Pamela K. Troyer
    • 1
  1. 1.George Fox CollegeUSA

Personalised recommendations