Sex Roles

, Volume 72, Issue 1–2, pp 40–49 | Cite as

“She” and “He” in News Media Messages: Pronoun Use Reflects Gender Biases in Semantic Contexts

  • Marie Gustafsson Sendén
  • Sverker Sikström
  • Torun Lindholm
Original Article


Previous research has shown a male bias in the media. This study tests this statement by examining how the pronouns She and He are used in a news media context. More specifically, the study tests whether He occurs more often and in more positive semantic contexts than She, as well as whether She is associated with more stereotypically and essential labels than He is. Latent semantic analysis (LSA) was applied to 400 000 Reuters’ news messages, written in English, published in 1996–1997. LSA is a completely data-driven method, extracting statistics of words from how they are used throughout a corpus. As such, no human coders are involved in the assessment of how pronouns occur in their contexts. The results showed that He pronouns were about 9 times more frequent than She pronouns. In addition, the semantic contexts of He were more positive than the contexts of She. Moreover, words associated with She-contexts included more words denoting gender, and were more homogeneous than the words associated with He-contexts. Altogether, these results indicate that men are represented as the norm in these media. Since these news messages are distributed on a daily basis all over the world, in printed newspapers, and on the internet, it seems likely that this presentation maintains, and reinforces prevalent gender stereotypes, hence contributing to gender inequities.


Gender stereotypes Gender Media news Latent semantic analysis Sentiment analysis Linguistic biases 



This research was supported by grants to the author from the Alhströms and Terserus foundation and from the foundation in memory of Lars Hierta.


  1. Armstrong, C. L. (2004). The influence of reporter gender on source selection in newspaper stories. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 81, 139–154. doi: 10.1177/107769900408100110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong, C. L. (2006). Story genre influences whether women are sources. Newspaper Research Journal, 27, 66–81.Google Scholar
  3. Benesch, C. (2012). An empirical analysis of the gender gap in news consumption. Journal of Media Economics, 25, 147–167. doi: 10.1080/08997764.2012.700976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1999). Affective norms for English words (ANEW): Stimuli, instruction manual and affective ratings. Gainesville: The NIMH center for the study of emotion and attention, University of Florida.Google Scholar
  5. Bruckmüller, S., Hegarty, P., & Abele, A. E. (2012). Framing gender differences: Linguistic normativity affects perceptions of power and gender stereotypes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 210–218. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell, R. S., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2003). The secret life of pronouns: Flexibility in writing style and physical health. Psychological Science, 14, 60–65. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.01419.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carnaghi, A., Maass, A., Gresta, S., Bianchi, M., Cadinu, M., & Arcuri, L. (2008). Nomina sunt omina: On the inductive potential of nouns and adjectives in person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 839–859. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.839.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Center for American Woman and Politics. (2012). Fact sheet. Retrieved from
  9. Collins, R. L. (2011). Content analysis of gender roles in media: Where are we now and where should we go? Sex Roles, 64, 290–298. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9929-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. David, D. L., Yiming, Y., Tony, G. R., & Fan, L. (2004). RCV1: A new benchmark collection for text categorization research. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 5, 361–397.Google Scholar
  11. Desmond, R., & Danilewicz, A. (2010). Women are on, but not in, the news: Gender roles in local television news. Sex Roles, 62, 822–829. doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9686-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1171–1188. doi: 10.1177/0146167200262001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1994). Are people prejudiced against women? Some answers from research on attitudes, gender stereotypes, and judgments of competence. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 1–35. doi: 10.1080/14792779543000002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 735–754. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte-Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple-regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 305–323. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(85)90002-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Foltz, W., Kintsch, W., & Landauer, K. (1998). The measurement of textual coherence with latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 285–307. doi: 10.1080/01638539809545029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Freedman, E., Fico, F., & Love, B. (2007). Male and female sources in newspaper coverage of male and female candidates in US Senate Races in 2004. Journal of Women Politics & Policy, 29, 57–76. doi: 10.1300/J501v29n01_04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Garcia, D., & Sikstrom, S. (2013). A collective theory of Happiness: Words related to the word “Happiness” in Swedish online newspapers. Cyberpsycholology, Behavior and Social Networking, 469–472 doi: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0535.Google Scholar
  19. Geschke, D., Sassenberg, K., Ruhrmann, G., & Sommer, D. (2010). Effects of linguistic abstractness in the mass media: How newspaper articles shape readers’ attitudes toward migrants. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories Methods and Applications, 22, 99–104. doi: 10.1027/1864-1105/a000014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Graf, S., Bilewicz, M., Finell, E., & Geschke, D. (2012). Nouns cut slices: Effects of linguistic forms on intergroup bias. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 32, 62–83. doi: 10.1177/0261927x12463209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gustafsson Sendén, M., Lindholm, T., & Sikstrom, S. (2014a). Biases in news media as reflected by personal pronouns in evaluative contexts. Social Psychology, 45, 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gustafsson Sendén, M., Lindholm, T., & Sikstrom, S. (2014b). Selection bias in choice of words: Evaluations of “I” and “We” differ between contexts, but “They” are always worse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 49–67. doi: 10.1177/0261927X13495856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hegarty, P., & Buechel, C. (2006). Androcentric reporting of gender differences in APA journals: 1965–2004. Review of General Psychology, 10, 377–389. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.10.4.377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hegarty, P., & Pratto, F. (2001). The effects of social category norms and stereotypes on explanations for intergroup differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 723–735. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.80.5.723.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Inter-parliamentary Union (2010). Is parliament open to women? An appraisal. Retrieved from
  26. Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory - Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93, 136–153. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.93.2.136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  28. Karlsson, K., Sikström, S., & Willander, J. (2013). The semantic representation of event information depends on the cue modality: An instance of meaning-based retrieval. PLoS ONE, 8, e73378. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073378.
  29. Koivula, N. (1999). Gender stereotyping in televised media sport coverage. Sex Roles, 41, 589–604. doi: 10.1023/a:1018899522353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Landauer, T. K. (1998). Learning and representing verbal meaning: The latent semantic analysis theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 161–164. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10836862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Landauer, T. K. (1999). Latent semantic analysis: A theory of the psychology of language and mind. Discourse Processes, 27, 303–310. doi: 10.1080/01638539909545065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259–284. doi: 10.1080/01638539809545028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Landauer, T. K., McNamara, D. S., Dennis, S., & Kintsch, W. (2007). Handbook of latent semantic analysis. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Lauzen, M. M., Dozier, D. M., & Horan, N. (2008). Constructing gender stereotypes through social roles in prime-time television. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52, 200–214. doi: 10.1080/08838150801991971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lenton, A., Sedikides, C., & Bruder, M. (2009). A latent semantic analysis of gender stereotype-consistency and narrowness in American English. Sex Roles, 60, 269–278. doi: 10.1007/s11199-008-9534-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Linville, P. W. (1982). The complexity-extremity effect and age-based stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 193–211. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.42.2.193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lämsä, A., & Tiensuu, T. (2002). Representations of the woman leader in Finnish business media articles. Business Ethics: A European Review, 11, 363–374. doi: 10.1111/1467-8608.00296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maass, A., Suitner, C., & Merkel, A. (2013). Does political correctness make (social) sense? In J. P. Forgas, O. Vincze, & J. László (Eds.), Social Cognition and communication (pp. 331–346). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  40. Matud, M. P., Rodríguez, C., & Espinosa, I. (2011). Gender in Spanish daily newspapers. Sex Roles, 64, 253–264. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9874-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376–390. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.114.2.376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Miller, D. T., Taylor, B., & Buck, M. L. (1991). Gender gaps: Who needs to be explained? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 5–12. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.61.1.5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Neuendorf, K. A. (2011). Content analysis—A methodological primer for gender research. Sex Roles, 64, 276–289. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9893-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pennebaker, J. W., Mehl, M. R., & Niederhoffer, K. G. (2003). Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 547–577. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145041.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Picard, R. R., & Cook, R. D. (1984). Cross-validation of regression models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 575–583. doi: 10.2307/2288403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pitts, M. J., & Nussbaum, J. F. (2006). Integrating the past and paving the future - Examining current trends and extending boundaries of language and social psychology research. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 25, 197–202. doi: 10.1177/0261927x06289421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reuters handbook of journalism. (2014). Writing: Discriminatory language. Retrieved from
  48. Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 637–655. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rose, T., Stevenson, M., & Whitehead, M. (2002). The Reuters Corpus Volume 1 - from yesterday's news to tomorrow's language resources. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation.Google Scholar
  50. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rudy, R. M., Popova, L., & Linz, D. G. (2010). The context of current content analysis of gender roles: An introduction to a special issue. Sex Roles, 62, 705–720. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9807-1.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rudy, R. M., Popova, L., & Linz, D. G. (2011). Contributions to the content analysis of gender roles: An introduction to a special issue. Sex Roles, 64, 151–159. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9937-0.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schwartz, J. (2011). Whose voices are heard? Gender, sexual orientation, and newspaper sources. Sex Roles, 64, 265–275. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9825-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Signorielli, N., & Kahlenberg, S. (2001). Television's world of work in the nineties. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45, 4–22. doi: 10.1207/S15506878jobem4501_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stahlberg, D., Braun, F., Irmen, L., & Sczesny, S. (2007). Representation of the sexes in language. In K. Fiedler (Ed.), Social Communication (pp. 163–187). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  56. Tepper, S. J. (2000). Fiction reading in America: Explaining the gender gap. Poetics, 27, 255–275. doi: 10.1016/S0304-422X(00)00003-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Catalyst, T. (2013). Statistical overview of women in the workplace.Google Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. UN (2009). Is parliament open to women? An appraisal conference for chairpersons and members of parliamentary bodies dealing with gender equality. Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union.Google Scholar
  60. Whomakesthenews (2010). Who makes the news? The global media monitoring project. Retrieved from
  61. Zoch, L. M., & Turk, J. V. (1998). Women making news: Gender as a variable in source selection and use. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 762–775. doi: 10.1177/107769909807500410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie Gustafsson Sendén
    • 1
  • Sverker Sikström
    • 2
  • Torun Lindholm
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations