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.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Availability of Data, Code, and Material
Available on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/v8nqe (see “Author gender category” folder).
Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63(7), 602–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.7.602
Bhakthavatsalam, S., Anastasiades, C., & Clark, P. (2020). GenericsKB: A Knowledge Base of Generic Statements. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv, Article 2005.00660.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000427
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.11.006
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.
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. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1817706116
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 85(9), 63–71.
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2013). Language and gender. Cambridge University Press.
Gelman, S. A. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. Oxford University Press.
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. http://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:48050864
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620952789
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Helmer, M., Schottdorf, M., Neef, A., & Battaglia, D. (2017). Gender bias in scholarly peer review. ELife, 6, Article e21718. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21718
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
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. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102
Hirsch, J. E. (2007). Does the h index have predictive power? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(49), 19193–19198. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707962104
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023117738903
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. https://doi.org/10.3386/w25759
Lakoff, R. T. (1975). Language and woman’s place. Harper & Row.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868307302221
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684310392728
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00290054
Lerchenmueller, M. J., & Sorenson, O. (2018). The gender gap in early career transitions in the life sciences. Research Policy, 47(6), 1007–1017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.02.009
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. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6573
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. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.032325
Leslie, S.-J. (2008). Generics: Cognition and acquisition. The Philosophical Review, 117(1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-2007-023
Leslie, S.-J., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M., & Freeland, E. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347(6219), 262. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261375
Leuschner, A. (2019). Why so low? Metaphilosophy, 50(3), 231–249. https://doi.org/10.1111/meta.12353
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0622.214.171.124
Lewis, N. A., & Wai, J. (2021). Communicating what we know and what isn’t so: Science communication in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 174569162096406. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620964062
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1992.tb00557.x
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018093
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2010.01561.x
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. https://doi.org/10.1101/400515
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.04.017
Odic, D., & Wojcik, E. H. (2020). The publication gender gap in psychology. American Psychologist, 75(1), 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000480
Prasada, S. (2000). Acquiring generic knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(2), 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01429-1
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620927709
Saraykar, S., Saleh, A., & Selek, S. (2017). The Association Between NIMH Funding and h-index in Psychiatry. Academic Psychiatry, 41(4), 455–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40596-016-0654-4
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12243
Shen, Y. A., Webster, J. M., Shoda, Y., & Fine, I. (2018). Persistent underrepresentation of women’s science in high profile journals. BioRxiv, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1101/275362
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617708630
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313515840
Sohn, E. (2020). Secrets to writing a winning grant. Nature, 577(7788), 133–135. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03914-5
Sonnert, G., & Holton, G. J. (1995). Who succeeds in science? Rutgers University Press.
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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150194
Taylor, S. (2010). Negotiating oppositions and uncertainties: Gendered conflicts in creative identity work. Feminism & Psychology, 21(3), 354–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353510386095
Valian, V. (1999). Why so slow?: The advancement of women. MIT press.
Wais, K. (2016). Gender prediction methods based on first names with genderizeR. The R Journal, 8(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2016-002
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.
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.
Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals
The research does not involve human subjects.
None (the research does not involve human subjects).
Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests
There are no conflicts of interest.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
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). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-021-01240-7
- Generic Language
- Scientific Communication