Cited by 46Gender Studies in LanguageLinguistic research and analysisMedia, Gender, and Advertising

Does the Use of Gender-Fair Language Influence the Comprehensibility of Texts?: An Experiment Using an Authentic Contract Manipulating Single Role Nouns and Pronouns

Friedrich, Marcus C. G., Heise, Elke·2019·Swiss Journal of Psychology

Abstract

In many languages masculine nouns and pronouns can be interpreted to refer to both male and female referents. However, even when the authors expressly point out that masculine forms are being used to refer to both women and men, readers and listeners predominantly form mental images of men. A gender-fair language that uses either masculine and feminine forms or gender-neutral forms to refer to women and men more equally elicits mental images of women and men. Critics often argue, however, that gender-fair language makes texts less comprehensible (readable). The present study tests this assumption for the German language: 355 students read a randomly assigned text that either used masculine-only forms or consistently used both masculine and feminine forms. After that, they answered the comprehensibility questionnaire by Friedrich (2017) . Participants who had read a text in gender-fair language did not give statistically significant lower ratings of comprehensibility than participants who had read a text that used masculine-only forms (partial η2 .05). The results indicate that the use of gender-fair language does not impair the comprehensibility of texts.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1024/1421-0185/a000223

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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);”
  • 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);”
  • The finding that comprehensibility ratings do not differ by text version contradicts the idea that gender-inclusive language is inherently harder to understand and therefore less accepted.

    “This finding contradicts the idea that gender-inclusive language is inherently harder to understand (for converging evidence see also Friedrich and Heise, 2019) and, therefore, less accepted.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Friedrich, M. C. G., & Heise, E.
Affiliations
Technische Universität Braunschweig (DE)
Venue
Swiss Journal of Psychology
Published
2019-04
Volume
78
Issue
1-2
Pages
51-60
ISSN
  • 1421-0185 (ISSN-L)
  • 1662-0879
OpenAlex
W2941374545
Cited by
46
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
FWCI
6.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Swiss Journal of Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Studies in Language
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistic research and analysis
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Media, Gender, and Advertising
Keywords
gender-inclusive language, gender-neutral language, text comprehensibility, readability, gender stereotypes, mental imagery, German language

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