Cited by 39Gender Studies in LanguageGender and Feminist StudiesLinguistic Variation and Morphology

Adopting Gender-Inclusive Language Reforms: Diachronic and Synchronic Variation

Rubin, Donald L., Greene, Kathryn, Schneider, Deidra·1994·Journal of Language and Social Psychology

Abstract

Previous research demonstrates a decline across time in gender-exclusive language among language users who are occupationally mandated to conform to nonsexist language guidelines (e.g., journalists). Little prior research, however, bears on changes across time among language users who are not thus constrained. Some prior studies do suggest that individual difference variables such as psychological gender-role schema and attitudes toward sexist language predict the degree to which individuals will adopt these language reforms. Study 1 addresses the diachronic issue by examining gender-exclusive language in public speeches delivered by male business leaders across three decades. Gender-exclusive language did decline from the 1960s to the 1970s. Study 2 examines both gender-exclusive and gender-inclusive language in the writing of male and female college students in two writing tasks. Study 2 also considers language users'gender-role schema and their attitudes toward sexist language. For production of gender-exclusive language, males greatly exceeded females. For production of gender-inclusive language, an inverse relation with instrumental (traditionally male) gender-role orientation was found. Moreover, biological males and females each controlled distinct repertoires of linguistic strategies. Situational differences (an expressive vs. an instrumental writing task) exerted more powerful effects on gender-inclusive language than did gender. These findings dictate that simplisti…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0261927x94132001

Cites

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?

  • In Rubin et al. (1994), men more frequently chose non-inclusive formulations such as -man or the generic masculine; men used the generic masculine more than four times as often as women did.

    “Rubin et al. (1994) found that men more frequently chose non-inclusive formulations such as -man or the generic masculine—in fact, men used the generic masculine more than four times as often as women did.”
  • In Rubin et al. (1994), women used pluralization and one more frequently than men, while men favored the other alternatives.

    “Women were found to use pluralization and one more frequently than men, while men favored the other alternatives.”
  • Rubin et al. (1994) found that participants, particularly men, used more inclusive expressions in a formal letter compared to a letter to a friend.

    “The analysis revealed that participants, particularly men, used more inclusive expressions in the formal letter compared to the letter to a friend.”

Authors
Rubin, D. L., Greene, K., & Schneider, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • East Carolina University (US)
Venue
Journal of Language and Social Psychology
Published
1994-06
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
91-114
ISSN
  • 0261-927X (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-6526
OpenAlex
W2104723818
Cited by
39
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.00
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 › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Linguistic Variation and Morphology
Keywords
gender-inclusive language, sexist language, language reform, linguistic strategies

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