Attitudes toward women mediate the gender effect on attitudes toward sexist language
Abstract
Studies of attitudes toward sexist language have consistently revealed a gender gap, with women considerably more supportive of inclusive language than men. The present study investigated this gender gap in the presence of “attitudes toward women,” a potential mediator variable. Participants were a convenience sample of 18- to 20-year-old college students ( N = 278). Most were European American/White (87%) women (60%). Data were collected using the Modern Sexism Scale, Neosexism Scale, Attitudes Toward Women Scale, and Inventory of Attitudes Toward Sexist/Nonsexist Language-General. The customary gender gap in attitudes toward sexist language was found in this sample. Regression tests of mediation, however, revealed that when measures of attitudes toward women were included in the analysis, the gender effect diminished by as much as 61% ( p < .01). These findings provide empirical evidence of a link between attitudes toward sexist language and the cultural construct, attitudes toward women.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Parks and Roberton (2004, 2005) found that women exhibited more positive attitudes toward gender-inclusive language than men.
“Their findings showed that women exhibited more positive attitudes toward gender-inclusive language than men.”
From What affects people’s use of and attitudes toward gender-inclusive language? A literature review (2025) · cites this paper as Parks and Roberton, 2004
In Parks and Roberton (2004, 2005), women's mean scores fell within the neutral range.
“while women’s mean scores fell within the neutral range”
From What affects people’s use of and attitudes toward gender-inclusive language? A literature review (2025) · cites this paper as Parks and Roberton, 2004
In Parks and Roberton (2004), men's attitudes varied at slightly above neutral.
“men’s attitudes varied at slightly above neutral (Parks and Roberton, 2004)”
From What affects people’s use of and attitudes toward gender-inclusive language? A literature review (2025) · cites this paper as Parks and Roberton, 2004
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Formanowicz, M. M., Cisłak, A., Horvath, L. K., & Sczesny, S. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01617 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
McDowell, J., & Cunningham, G. B. (2008) · Sex Roles · doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9392-8 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
What affects people’s use of and attitudes toward gender-inclusive language? A literature review
Lange, E., & von Stockhausen, L. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1657753 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Parks, J. B., & Mary Ann, R.
- Affiliations
- Bowling Green State University (US)
- Distinguished Teaching Professor, works in the Sport Management, Recreation, and Tourism Division of the School of Human Movement, Sport, and Leisure Studies at Bowling Green State University. Mary Ann Roberton is a Professor in the Kinesiology Division of the same school.
- Venue
- Psychology of Women Quarterly
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2004-09
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 233-239
- ISSN
- 0361-6843 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-6402
- OpenAlex
- W2155368420
- Cited by
- 62
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 3.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychology of Women Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Studies in Language
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Keywords
- sexist language, gender gap, attitudes toward women, modern sexism, neosexism, inclusive language, mediation, gender differences, university students
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