CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 73Gender Studies in LanguageLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyLinguistic Variation and Morphology

The multiple meanings of the gender-inclusive pronoun hen: predicting attitudes and use

Open access
Renström, Emma A., Lindqvist, Anna, Sendén, Marie Gustafsson·2022·European Journal of Social Psychology
DOI 10.1002/ejsp.2816
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The Swedish gender‐inclusive pronoun hen can be used generically (referring to anyone), or specifically (referring to non‐binary gender identities). Three studies tested evaluations and use of hen, and individual‐level predictors. In Study 1 (N = 2145), specific hen was slightly favoured over generic hen. In Study 2 (N = 297), hen was more negatively evaluated than binary pronouns, and generic hen was more positively evaluated than specific hen. In Study 3 (N = 450), hen was less frequently used compared to binary pronouns overall but preferred in generic contexts. Traditionalism mainly predicted attitudes towards generic hen and beliefs about gender, as binary mainly predicted attitudes towards specific hen, although the pattern varied across studies. Because hen was preferred in generic contexts, but not in specific ones, this work has implications for understanding the non‐acceptance of non‐binary gender identities since the traditional binary notion of gender still is strong.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ejsp.2816

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Gender-fair forms mitigate male-biased mental representations and disadvantageous decisions.

    “Gender-fair forms have been shown to mitigate these tendencies and to constitute no linguistic barrier for individuals, regardless of their educational background (Friedrich and Heise, 2019; Pabst and Kollmayer, 2023; Renström et al., 2022);”

    From What affects people’s use of and attitudes toward gender-inclusive language? A literature review (2025) · cites this paper as Renström et al., 2022

    Section 1.2.1 (page not specified in the indexed passage) reports that combining feminine and masculine forms increased mental representations of women compared with generic masculine forms. It does not establish that gender-fair forms mitigate disadvantageous decisions. The paper assesses reading difficulty for hen, but does not establish the citing sentence’s claim that gender-fair forms pose no linguistic barrier regardless of educational background. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Gender-fair forms constitute no linguistic barrier for individuals, regardless of their educational background.

    “Gender-fair forms have been shown to mitigate these tendencies and to constitute no linguistic barrier for individuals, regardless of their educational background (Friedrich and Heise, 2019; Pabst and Kollmayer, 2023; Renström et al., 2022);”

    From What affects people’s use of and attitudes toward gender-inclusive language? A literature review (2025) · cites this paper as Renström et al., 2022

    The Results and discussion for Study 2 report that ratings of difficulty reading sentences with hen were very low, supporting the narrower point that this pronoun was not difficult to read in the study. The paper does not establish that gender-fair forms generally pose no linguistic barrier regardless of educational background; its reported background-variable analysis does not include education. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In Gustafsson Sendén et al. (2015) and Renström et al. (2022), women reported using hen more frequently than men.

    “In both studies, women reported using hen more frequently than men.”

    From What affects people’s use of and attitudes toward gender-inclusive language? A literature review (2025) · cites this paper as Renström et al., 2022

    Study 3 Results (Section 4.2, Table 9) say women used hen more frequently than men in a sentence-completion task, although the gender effect disappeared after belief measures were added to the model. The study measured spontaneous use, not participants’ self-reported frequency of use, so it does not support that part of the claim. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Renström et al. (2022) found no significant relationship between gender identity strength and attitudes toward hen.

    “While Renström et al. (2022) found no significant relationship between gender identity strength and attitudes toward hen”

    From What affects people’s use of and attitudes toward gender-inclusive language? A literature review (2025) · cites this paper as Renström et al., 2022

    Study 1’s Results and discussion (Table 2) found no significant association between gender identity strength and directly assessed attitudes toward either meaning of hen. But Study 2’s Results and discussion (Table 5) found a significant association with negative valence toward the specific meaning of hen, an indirect attitude measure. The claim is accurate for Study 1’s direct measures, but too broad as a summary of the paper. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Interest was a stronger predictor of attitudes than political orientation in these studies.

    “Notably, interest was a stronger predictor of attitudes than political orientation in these studies.”

    From What affects people’s use of and attitudes toward gender-inclusive language? A literature review (2025) · cites this paper as Renström et al. (2022)

    Table 2 (Section 2.2, Study 1) shows that interest in gender issues had larger regression coefficients for attitudes toward both meanings of hen than either measure of political orientation. But Section 1.3 says interest and political orientation were included as controls only in Study 1, so the comparison is not established across the studies. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 53

  1. Bigler, R., & Leaper, C. (2015). Gendered language: Psychological prin- ciples, evolving practices, and inclusive polices. Policy Insights from Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2, 187-194. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2372732215600452 · DOI
  2. Bieswanger, M., Motschenbacher, H., & Mühleisen, S. (2010). Introduction. In M. Bieswanger, H. Motschenbacher, & Mühleisen (Eds.), Language in its socio-cultural context: New explorations in gendered, global and media uses (pp. 9-19).
  3. Bizumic, B., & Duckitt, J. (2018). Investigating right wing authoritarianism with a very short authoritarianism scale. Journal of Social and Political Psy- chology, 6, 129-150. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v6i1.835 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Blaubergs, M. S. (1980). An analysis of classic arguments against chang- ing sexist language. Women's Studies International Quarterly, 3, 135-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-0685(80)92071-0 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Bradley, E., Schmid, M., & Lombardo, H. (2019). Personality, prescrip- tivism and pronouns: Factors influencing grammaticality judgements of gender-neutral language. English Today, 35, 41-52. https://doi.org/10. 1017/S0266078419000063 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Chung, C., & Pennebaker, J. (2016). The psychological function of function words. In K. Fiedler (Ed.), Social communication (pp. 343-359). Routledge.
  7. Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and con- trolled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.5 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Duckitt, J., Bizumic, B., Krauss, S. W., & Heled, E. (2010). A tripar- tite approach to right-wing authoritarianism: The authoritarianism- conservatism-traditionalism model. Political Psychology, 31, 685-715. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00781.x · DOI
  9. Eidelman, S., & Crandall, C. S. (2012). Bias in favor of the status quo. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6, 270-281. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00427.x · DOI
  10. Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Attitudes: Foundations, functions, and consequences. In M. A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social psychology (pp. 139-160). Sage.
  11. Fazio, R. H., Powell, M. C., & Williams, C. J. (1989). The role of attitude acces- sibility in the attitude-to-behavior process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 280-288. https://doi.org/10.1086/209214 · DOI
  12. Fiedler, K. (2008) Language a toolbox for sharing and influencing social reality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 38-47 https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00060.x · DOI · Paper page
  13. Formanowicz, M., Bedynska, S., Cisłak, A., Braun, F., & Sczesny, S. (2013). Side effects of gender-fair language: How feminine job titles influence the evaluation of female applicants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(1), 62-71. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1924 · DOI
  14. Gustafsson Senden, M., Bäck, E. A., & Lindqvist, A. (2015). Introducing a gender-neutral pronoun in a natural gender language: The influence of time on attitudes and behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 893. https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00893 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Gustafsson Senden, M., Klysing, A., Lindqvist, A., & Renström, E. A. (2019). The (Not So) Changing Man: Dynamic Gender Stereotypes in Sweden. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00037 · DOI
  16. Hekanaho, L. (2020). Generic and nonbinary pronouns. Usage, acceptability and attitudes [Doctoral thesis, University of Helsinki].
  17. Hansen, K., Littwitz, C., & Sczesny, S. (2016). The social perception of heroes and murderers: Effects of gender-inclusive language in media reports. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 369. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg. 2016.00369 · DOI
  18. Hodel, L., Formanowicz, M., Sczesny, S., Valdrova, J., & von Stockhausen, L. (2017). Gender-fair language in job advertisements: A cross-linguistic and cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(3), 384-401. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022116688085 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Hyde, J. (1984). Children's understanding of sexist language. Developmental Psychology, 20, 697-706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.20.4.697 · DOI
  20. Hyde, J. S., Bigler, R. S., Joel, D., Tate, C. C., & Van Anders, S. M. (2019). The future of sex and gender in psychology: Five challenges to the gen- der binary. American Psychologist, 74, 171-193. https://doi.org/10.1037/ amp0000307 · DOI
  21. Jezierska, K., & Towns, A. (2018). Taming feminism? The place of gender equality in the 'progressive Sweden' brand. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 14, 55-63. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-017-0091-5 · DOI
  22. Koeser, S., & Sczesny, S. (2014). Promoting gender-fair language: The impact of arguments on language use, attitudes, and cognitions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 548-560. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0261927X14541280 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Koeser, S., Kuhn, E. A., & Sczesny, S. (2015). Just reading? How gender- fair language triggers readers' use of gender-fair forms. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 34, 343-357. https://doi.org/10.1177/ · DOI · Paper page
  24. 0261927X14561119 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Kuhn, E. A., & Gabriel, U. (2014). Actual and potential gender-fair lan- guage use: The role of language competence and the motivation to use accurate language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 214- 225.
  26. Lindqvist, A., Renström, E. A., & Gustafsson Senden, M. (2018). Reducing a male bias in language? Establishing the efficiency of three different gender-fair language strategies. Sex Roles, 81, 109-117. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11199-018-0974-9 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Lindqvist, A., Renström, E. A., & Gustafsson Sendén, M. (2020). What is gen- der anyway? A review of the options for operationalizing gender. Psychol- ogy & Sexuality. 12, 332-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2020. 1729844 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self- evaluation of one's social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bul- letin, 18, 302-318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292183006 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Martyna, W. (1980). The psychology of the generic masculine. In S. McConnell- Ginet, R. Borker, & N. Furman (Eds.), Women and language in literature and society (pp. 69-78). Praeger.
  30. Moreland, R. L., & Topolinski, S. (2010). The mere exposure phenomenon: A lingering melody by Robert Zajonc. Emotion Review, 2, 329-339. https: //doi.org/10.1177/1754073910375479 · DOI
  31. Morgenroth, T., Gustafsson Sendén, M., Lindqvist, A., Renström, E. A., Ryan, M., & Morton, T. (2020). Defending the sex/gender binary: The role of gender identification and need for closure. Social Psycho- logical and Personality Science, 12, 731-740. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1948550620937188 · DOI
  32. Moulton, J., Robinson, G. M., & Elias, C. (1978). Psychology in action -Sex bias in language use -Neutral pronouns that arent. American Psychologist, 33, 1032-1036. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.33.11.1032 · DOI
  33. Parks, J., & Roberton, M. (1998). Contemporary arguments against nonsex- ist language: Blaubergs (1980) revisited. Sex Roles, 39, 445-461. https: //doi.org/10.1023/A:1018827227128 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. Academic Press.
  35. Pennebaker, J. W. (2011). The secret life of pronouns: What our words say about us. Bloomsbury.
  36. Pennebaker (2011). The secret life of pronouns: What our words say about us. Bloomsbury.
  37. Schwarz, N., & Bohner, G. (2001). The construction of attitudes. In Blackwell handbook of social psychology: intraindividual processes (Vol. 1, pp. 436- 457). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
  38. Sczesny, S., Formanowicz, M., & Moser, F. (2016). Can gender-fair language reduce gender stereotyping and discrimination? Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 25. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00025 · DOI
  39. Sheater, S. (2009). A modern approach to regression with R. Springer.
  40. Silveira, J. (1980). Generic masculine words and thinking. Women's Stud- ies International Quarterly, 3, 165-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148- 0685(80)92113-2 · DOI
  41. Siewierska, A. (2013). Gender distinctions in independent personal pro- nouns. In M. S. Dryer & M. H. Leipzig The world atlas of language struc- tures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/44
  42. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70- 96). Cambridge University Press.
  43. Stahlberg, D., Braun, F., Irmen, L., & Sczesny, S. (2007). Representation of the sexes in language. In K. Fiedler (Ed.), Social communication (pp. 163-187). Psychology Press.
  44. Stahlberg, D., Sczesny, S., & Braun, F. (2001). Name your favorite musician - Effects of masculine generics and of their alternatives in German. Jour- nal of Language and Social Psychology, 20(4), 464-469. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0261927X01020004004 · DOI
  45. Stanley, J. (1978). Sexist grammar. College English, 39, 800-811. https://doi. org/10.2307/375702 · DOI
  46. StataCorp. (2013). Stata 13 Test linear hypotheses after estimation. Stata Press.
  47. Spender, D. (1985). Man made language (2nd ed.). Routledge & Kegan Paul. Swedish Research Council, (2017). God forskningssed. Online publica- tion: https://www.vr.se/download/18.2412c5311624176023d25b05/ 1555332112063/God-forskningssed_VR_2017.pdf
  48. Tavitz, M., & Perez, E. O. (2019). Language influences mass opinions towards gender and LGBT equality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 16781-16786. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908156116 · DOI
  49. Tee, N., & Hegarty, P. (2006). Predicting opposition to the civil rights of trans persons in the United Kingdom. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 70-80. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.851 · DOI
  50. Vergoossen, H. P., Renström, E. A., Lindqvist, A., & Gustafsson Sendén, M. (2020a). Four dimensions of criticism against gender-fair langauge. Sex Roles, 83, 328-337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01108-x · DOI · Paper page
  51. Vergoossen, H. P., Pärnamets, P., Renström, E. A., & Gustafsson Sendén, M. (2020b). Are new gender-neutral pronouns difficult to process in read- ing? The case of hen in Swedish. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 574356. https: //doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.574356 · DOI
  52. Zimman, L. (2017). Transgender language reform: Some challenges and strategies for promoting trans-affirming, gender-inclusive language. Journal of Language and Discrimination, 1, 84-105. https://doi.org/10. 1558/jld.33139 · DOI · Paper page
  53. Zimmer, B., & Carson, C. E. (2012). Among the New Words. American Speech, 87, 491-510. https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-1587259 How to cite this article: Renström, E. A., Lindqvist, A., & Sendén, M. G. (2022). The multiple meanings of the gender-inclusive pronoun hen: Predicting attitudes and use. European Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 71-90. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2816 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Renström, E. A., Lindqvist, A., & Sendén, M. G.
Affiliations
  • Kristianstad University (SE)
  • Lund University (SE)
  • Stockholm University (SE)
Corresponding author
Renström, Emma A.
ORCID
Venue
European Journal of Social Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-02
Volume
52
Issue
1
Pages
71-90
ISSN
  • 0046-2772 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0992
DOI
10.1002/ejsp.2816
OpenAlex
W3206635718
Cited by
73
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1
FWCI
3.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • European Journal of Social Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Studies in Language
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Linguistic Variation and Morphology
Keywords
gender-neutral pronouns, non-binary gender identity, generic pronouns, Swedish language, traditionalism, language use

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review