Do Language Reforms Change Our Way of Thinking?
Abstract
A naturalistic experiment investigated the effects of language reforms on several aspects of thought. Half of the students in an introductory psychology class received corrections any time they used "he" as a generic pronoun in their written work; the other half received no corrections to their written language use. At the end of the semester, all students completed measures of their language use, their gender imagery, and their attitudes to-ward language reforms. Results showed that the language corrections did reduce students' subsequent use of gender-biased language but did not affect their imagery nor their attitudes toward language reforms. Additional results revealed thatgender imagery was related to the gender connotations of the language encountered in the imagery task, especially for female students, and to language use for students who did not receive corrections. Implications of these results for the debate about the masculine generic prescription are discussed.
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?
Men are more resistant toward gender-inclusive language compared to individuals with other gender identities.
“men are more resistant toward gender-inclusive language compared to individuals with other gender identities (Douglas & Sutton, 2014; Parks & Roberton, 2005; Prentice, 1994; Sarrasin et al., 2012; Stahlberg et al., 2007)”
From A Sexist Language? Gender Differences in Attitudes and Use of Gender-Inclusive Pronouns (2025) · cites this paper as Prentice, 1994
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The influence of linguistic and social attitudes on grammaticality judgments of singular ‘they’
Bradley, E. D. (2020) · Language Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2020.101272 · Cited by 75 · 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
A Sexist Language? Gender Differences in Attitudes and Use of Gender-Inclusive Pronouns
Remsö, A., Bäck, H., & Renström, E. A. (2025) · Journal of Language and Social Psychology · doi:10.1177/0261927x251335305 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“Empirical research supports this, showing that men are more resistant toward gender-inclusive language compared to individuals with other gender identities (Douglas & Sutton, 2014; Parks & Roberton, 2005; Prentice, 1994; Sarrasin et al., 2012; Stahlberg et al., 2007).”
- Authors
- Prentice, D. A.
- Affiliations
- Princeton University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Prentice, Deborah A.
- ORCID
- Prentice, Deborah A.
- Venue
- Journal of Language and Social Psychology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1994-03
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-19
- ISSN
- 0261-927X (ISSN-L)
- 1552-6526
- OpenAlex
- W2030841543
- Cited by
- 49
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Language and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Studies in Language
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
- Keywords
- language reform, gender-neutral language, gender imagery, language attitudes, language correction, gender bias in language, naturalistic experiment, psychology 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