Skip to main content

When Gender Matters in Scientific Communication: The Role of Generic Language


Prior research has documented gender differences in self-presentation and self-promotion. For example, a recent analysis of scientific publications in the biomedical sciences reveals that articles with women in lead author positions (first and last) included fewer positive words to describe their results than articles with men in lead author positions. Here we examined the role of gender in peer-reviewed publications in psychology, with a focus on generic language. When authors describe their results using generic statements (e.g., “Introverts and extraverts require different learning environments”), those statements gloss over variability, frame an idea as broad, timeless, and universally true, and have been judged to be more important. In a sample of 1,149 psychology articles published in 2015–16 from 11 journals, we found that women in lead author positions were less likely to employ generic language than men in lead author positions, and that publications with more generic language received more citations (as did publications authored by men). We discuss how a subtle gender difference in self-presentation may have direct consequences for how a scientific finding is interpreted and cited, with potential downstream consequences for career advancement for women and men.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Availability of Data, Code, and Material

Available on the Open Science Framework: (see “Author gender category” folder).


  1. Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63(7), 602–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bhakthavatsalam, S., Anastasiades, C., & Clark, P. (2020). GenericsKB: A Knowledge Base of Generic Statements. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv, Article 2005.00660.

  3. Bian, L., Leslie, S.-J., & Cimpian, A. (2018a). Evidence of bias against girls and women in contexts that emphasize intellectual ability. American Psychologist, 73(9), 1139–1153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bian, L., Leslie, S.-J., Murphy, M. C., & Cimpian, A. (2018b). Messages about brilliance undermine women’s interest in educational and professional opportunities. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 404–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, 139–168.

    Google Scholar 

  6. DeJesus, J. M., Callanan, M. A., Solis, G., & Gelman, S. A. (2019). Generic language in scientific communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(37), 18370–18377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 85(9), 63–71.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2013). Language and gender. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Gelman, S. A. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. Oxford University Press.

  10. Ghiasi, G., Lariviere, V., & Sugimoto, C. (2016). Gender differences in synchronous and diachronous self-citations. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators.

  11. Gruber, J., Mendle, J., Lindquist, K. A., Schmader, T., Clark, L. A., Bliss-Moreau, E., et al. (2020). The future of women in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(3), 483–516.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

  13. Helmer, M., Schottdorf, M., Neef, A., & Battaglia, D. (2017). Gender bias in scholarly peer review. ELife, 6, Article e21718.

  14. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Hirsch, J. E. (2007). Does the h index have predictive power? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(49), 19193–19198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. King, M. M., Bergstrom, C. T., Correll, S. J., Jacquet, J., & West, J. D. (2017). Men set their own cites high: Gender and self-citation across fields and over time. Socius, 3, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kolev, J., Fuentes-Medel, Y., & Murray, F. (2019). Is blinded review enough? How gendered outcomes arise even under anonymous evaluation. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, 25779.

  19. Lakoff, R. T. (1975). Language and woman’s place. Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Leaper, C., & Ayres, M. M. (2007). A meta-analytic review of gender variations in adults’ language use: Talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(4), 328–363.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Leaper, C., & Robnett, R. D. (2011). Women are more likely thanmen to use tentative language, aren’t they? A meta-analysis testing for gender differences and moderators. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(1), 129–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lenney, E., Gold, J., & Browning, C. (1983). Sex differences in self-confidence: The influence of comparison to others’ ability level. Sex Roles, 9(9), 925–942.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lerchenmueller, M. J., & Sorenson, O. (2018). The gender gap in early career transitions in the life sciences. Research Policy, 47(6), 1007–1017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lerchenmueller, M. J., Sorenson, O., & Jena, A. B. (2019). Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: Observational study. British Medical Journal, 367(l6573), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lerchenmüller, C., Lerchenmueller, M. J., & Olav, S. (2018). Long-term analysis of sex differences in prestigious authorships in cardiovascular research supported by the national institutes of health. Circulation, 137(8), 880–882.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Leslie, S.-J. (2008). Generics: Cognition and acquisition. The Philosophical Review, 117(1), 1–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Leslie, S.-J., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M., & Freeland, E. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347(6219), 262.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Leuschner, A. (2019). Why so low? Metaphilosophy, 50(3), 231–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lundeberg, M. A., Fox, P. W., & Punćcohaŕ, J. (1994). Highly confident but wrong: Gender differences and similarities in confidence judgments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lewis, N. A., & Wai, J. (2021). Communicating what we know and what isn’t so: Science communication in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 174569162096406.

  31. Miller, L. C., Cooke, L. L., Tsang, J., & Morgan, F. (1992). Should I brag? Nature and impact of positive and boastful disclosures for women and men. Human Communication Research, 18(3), 364–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). When men break the gender rules: Status incongruity and backlash against modest men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11(2), 140–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). Disruptions in women’s self-promotion: The backlash avoidance model. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34(2), 186–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Murray, D., Siler, K., Larivière, V., Chan, W. M., Collings, A. M., Raymond, J., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2019). Author-reviewer homophily in peer review. BioRxiv, 1–61.

  35. Nielsen, M., Haun, D., Kärtner, J., & Legare, C. H. (2017). The persistent sampling bias in developmental psychology: A call to action. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 162, 31–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Odic, D., & Wojcik, E. H. (2020). The publication gender gap in psychology. American Psychologist, 75(1), 92–103.

  37. Prasada, S. (2000). Acquiring generic knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(2), 66–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Roberts, S. O., Bareket-Shavit, C., Dollins, F. A., Goldie, P. D., & Mortenson, E. (2020). Racial inequality in psychological research: Trends of the past and recommendations for the future. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(6), 1295–1309.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Saraykar, S., Saleh, A., & Selek, S. (2017). The Association Between NIMH Funding and h-index in Psychiatry. Academic Psychiatry, 41(4), 455–459.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Scharff, C. (2015). Blowing your own trumpet: Exploring the gendered dynamics of self-promotion in the classical music profession. The Sociological Review, 63(S1), 97–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Shen, Y. A., Webster, J. M., Shoda, Y., & Fine, I. (2018). Persistent underrepresentation of women’s science in high profile journals. BioRxiv, 1–8.

  42. Simons, D. J., Shoda, Y., & Lindsay, D. S. (2017). Constraints on Generality (COG): A proposed addition to all empirical papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1123–1128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Smith, J. L., & Huntoon, M. (2014). Women’s bragging rights: Overcoming modesty norms to facilitate women’s self-promotion. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(4), 447–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Sohn, E. (2020). Secrets to writing a winning grant. Nature, 577(7788), 133–135.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Sonnert, G., & Holton, G. J. (1995). Who succeeds in science? Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Storage, D., Horne, Z., Cimpian, A., & Leslie, S.-J. (2016). The frequency of “brilliant” and “genius” in teaching evaluations predicts the representation of women and African Americans across fields. PLoS One, 11(3), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Taylor, S. (2010). Negotiating oppositions and uncertainties: Gendered conflicts in creative identity work. Feminism & Psychology, 21(3), 354–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Valian, V. (1999). Why so slow?: The advancement of women. MIT press.

  49. Wais, K. (2016). Gender prediction methods based on first names with genderizeR. The R Journal, 8(1), 17.

  50. Williams, J., Phillips, K. W., & Hall, E. V. (2014). Double jeopardy?: Gender bias against women of color in science. Hastings College of the Law, Center for WorkLife Law.

Download references


This research was supported in part by a Templeton Foundation grant #61445 to Gelman. We thank Ella Kanter, Olivia Waelchli, Hannah Meloche, Alaa Al-Kahalah, Isabelle Orlan, Caroline Boger, Luke Dula, Lily Moore, and Sarah Pettus for coding assistance and Julie Lumeng for initial conversations.


This research was supported in part by a Templeton Foundation grant to the last author.

Author information




All authors contributed to the study conception and design. The first and second authors performed and supervised coding. The first author performed the statistical analysis and all authors consulted on interpretation. All authors contributed to writing the first draft, commented on manuscript drafts, and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jasmine M. DeJesus.

Ethics declarations

Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals

The research does not involve human subjects.

Informed Consent

None (the research does not involve human subjects).

Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests

There are no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

DeJesus, J.M., Umscheid, V.A. & Gelman, S.A. When Gender Matters in Scientific Communication: The Role of Generic Language. Sex Roles 85, 577–586 (2021).

Download citation


  • Gender
  • Psychology
  • Generic Language
  • Scientific Communication
  • Metascience
  • Citations