Sex Roles

, Volume 41, Issue 7–8, pp 559–575

Does Alternating Between Masculine and Feminine Pronouns Eliminate Perceived Gender Bias in Text?

  • Laura Madson
  • Robert M. Hessling
Article

Abstract

This study explores whether alternating betweenthe pronouns “he” and “she” ina text is an effective way to avoid sexist language.Participants were psychology students at a largemidwestern university and were predominately White and frommiddle-class backgrounds. Students read two versions ofan essay, one that alternated between masculine andfeminine pronouns and one that exclusively used paired, “he or she”-type pronouns. Readersperceived the alternating version to be biased in favorof females and lower in overall quality than the pairedversion. However, the alternating version appeared to be more effective at combating sexism,suggesting an alternating strategy may be desirable forauthors with this goal. If the author is not primarilyconcerned with increasing readers' awareness of gender issues, techniques such as pluralization or thesingular “they” may be moreappropriate.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Addison Wesley Longman. (1998). Author's guide. Reading, MA: Author. American Heritage dictionary of the English language (1996). 3rd ed. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  2. American Marketing Association. (1996). The AMA style guide for business writing. New York: Author.Google Scholar
  3. American Medical Association. (1998). AMA manual of style: A guide for authors and editors (9th ed.). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  4. American Psychological Association. (1994). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  5. Baron, D. E. (1981). The epicene pronoun: The word that failed. American Speech, 56, 83–97.Google Scholar
  6. Bate B. (1978). Nonsexist language use in transition. Journal of Communication, 28, 139–149.Google Scholar
  7. Bem, S., & Bem, D. (1973). Does sex-biased job advertisting ''aid and abet'' sex discrimination? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 6–18.Google Scholar
  8. Blaubergs, J. S. (1978). Changing sexist language: The theory behind the practice. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2, 244–261.Google Scholar
  9. Bodine, A. (1975). Sex differentiation in language. In B. Thorne & N. Henley (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance (pp. 130–151). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  10. Bolinger, D. (1980). LanguageThe loaded weapon. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  11. Buckley, W. F. (1976, May 28). Unsex me now. National Review, p. 583. Chicago manual of style (1993). 14th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Clark, H., and Clark, E. (1977). Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  13. Converse, C. C.(1884). A new pronoun. The Critican d Good Literature, 1884 (2 August), 55.Google Scholar
  14. Cooper, R. (1984). The avoidance of androcentric generics. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 50, 5–20.Google Scholar
  15. Dumond, V. (1990). The elements of nonsexist usage: A guide to inclusive spoken and written english. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Fenner, M. S. (1974). After all, Today' s Education, 63, 110.Google Scholar
  17. Fisk, W. R. (1985). Responses to ''neutral' ' pronoun presentations and the development of sex-biased responding. Developmental Psychology, 21, 481–485.Google Scholar
  18. Frank, F. W., & Treichler, P. A. (1989). Guidelines for nonsexist usage. In F. W. Frank & P. A. Treichler (Eds.), Language, gender, and professional writing:Theoretical approaches and guidelines for nonsexist usage (pp. 137–280). New York: Commission on the Status of Women in the Profession/Modern Language Association of America.Google Scholar
  19. Gastil, J. (1990).Generic pronouns and sexist language: The oxymoronic character ofmasculine generics. Sex Roles, 23, 629–643.Google Scholar
  20. Gibaldi, J. (Ed.). (1998). MLA style manual (2nd ed.). New York: Modern Language Association.Google Scholar
  21. Goldberg, P. A. (1968). Are women prejudiced against women? Transaction, 5, 28–30.Google Scholar
  22. Hacker, D. (1998). The Bed ford handbook (5th ed.)Boston: Bedford Books.Google Scholar
  23. Hacker, D. (1999). A writer' s reference (4th ed.)Boston: Bedford Books.Google Scholar
  24. Hamilton, M. C. (1988). Using masculine generics: Do generic ''he' ' increase male bias in the user's imagery? Sex Roles, 19, 785–799.Google Scholar
  25. Hamilton, M. C. (1991). Masculine bias in the attribution of personhood: People-male; male-people. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 393–402.Google Scholar
  26. Heffernan, J. A., & Lincoln, J. F. (1982). Writing: A college handbook (pp. 311–312). New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  27. Huber, J. (1976). On the generic use of male pronouns. American Sociologist, 11, 89.Google Scholar
  28. Kidd, V. (1971). A study of the images produced through the use of a male pronoun as the generic. Movements: Contemporary Rhetoric and Communication, 1, 25–30.Google Scholar
  29. Lunsford, A., & Connors, R. (1999). The new St.Martin' s handbook. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin's.Google Scholar
  30. Lyons, J. (1968). Theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. MacKay, D. G. (1980a). Psychology, prescriptive grammar and the pronoun problem. American Psychologist, 35, 444–449.Google Scholar
  32. MacKay, D. G. (1980b). On the goals, principles, and procedures for prescriptive grammar: Singular ''they.'' Language in Society, 9, 349–367.Google Scholar
  33. MacKay, D. G. (1983). Prescriptive grammar and the pronoun problem. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, and N. Henley (Eds.), Language, gender and society (pp. 38–53). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
  34. MacKay, D. G., & Fulkerson, D. (1979). On the comprehension and production of pronouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 661–673.Google Scholar
  35. Martyna, W. (1983). Beyond the he/man approach: The case of nonsexist language. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, and N. Henley (Eds.), Language, gender, and society (pp. 25–37). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
  36. McConnell, A. R., & Fazio, R. H. (1996). Women as men and people: Effects of gender marked language. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1004–1013.Google Scholar
  37. McConnell, A. R., & Gavanski, I. (1994, May). Women as men and people: Occupation title suffixes as primes. Paper presented at the 66th annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  38. McConnell-Ginet, S. (1989). The sexual (re )production of meaning: A discourse-based theory. In F. W. Frank & P. A. Tetichler (Eds.), Language, gender, and professional writing: Theoretical approaches and guidelines for nonsexist usage (pp. 35–50). New York: Commission on the Status of Women in the Profession/Modern Language Association of America.Google Scholar
  39. McConnell-Ginet, S., Borker, R., and Furman, N. (1986). Linguistics and the feminist challenge. In S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Borker, and N. Furman (Eds.), Women and language in literature and society (pp. 3–25). Westport, CT: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  40. Meyers, M. (1990). Current generic pronoun usage. American Speech, 65, 228–237.Google Scholar
  41. Miller, C., & Swift, K. (1988). The handbook of nonsexist writing. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  42. Moulton, J., Robinson, G. M., and Elias, C. (1978). Sex bias in language use. American Psychologist, 33, 1032–1036.Google Scholar
  43. Murdock, N. L., & Forsyth, D. R. (1985). Is gender-biased language sexist? A perceptual approach. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 39–49.Google Scholar
  44. Rosnow, R. L., & Rosnow, M. (1995). Writing papers in psychology: A student guide. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  45. Rubin, D. L., Greene, K., & Schneider, D. (1994). Adopting gender-inclusive language reforms: Diachronic and synchronic variation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13, 91–114.Google Scholar
  46. Schneider, J. W., & Hacker, S. L. (1973). Sex role imagery and use of the generic ''man'' in introductory texts: A case in the sociology and sociology. American Sociologist, 8, 12–18.Google Scholar
  47. Schwartz, M., and the Task Force on Bias-free Language of the Association of American University Presses (1995). Guidelines for bias-free writing (pp. 8–29). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Sklar, E. (1988). The tribunal of use: Agreement in indefinite constructions. College Composition and Communication, 39, 410–422.Google Scholar
  49. Spencer, N. J. (1978). Can ''she'' and ''he'' coexist? American Psychologist, 33, 782–783.Google Scholar
  50. Stericker, A. (1981). Does this ''he or she'' business really make a difference? The effect of masculine pronouns as generics on job attitudes. Sex Roles, 7, 637–641.Google Scholar
  51. Strunk, W., & White, E. B. (1979). The elements of style. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  52. Swim, J., Borgida, E., Maruyama, G., & Myers, D. G. (1989). Joan McKay versus John McKay: Do gender stereotypes bias evaluations? Psychological Bulletin, 105, 409–429.Google Scholar
  53. Switzer, J. Y. (1990). The impact of generic word choices: An empirical investigation of age-and sex-related differences. Sex Roles, 22, 69–82.Google Scholar
  54. Valian, V. (1977). Linguistics and feminism. In M. Vetterline-Braggin, F. Elliston, J. English, & M. Vetterling (Eds.), Feminism and philosophy (pp. 154–166). Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams.Google Scholar
  55. Wilson, E., & Ng, S. H. (1988). Sex bias in visual images evoked by generics: A New Zealand study, Sex Roles, 18, 159–168.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Madson
  • Robert M. Hessling

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations