CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16Gender Studies in LanguageLinguistic research and analysisLinguistic Variation and Morphology

How to make a difference: the impact of gender-fair language on text comprehensibility amongst adults with and without an academic background

Open access
Pabst, Laura Mathilde, Kollmayer, Marlene·2023·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1234860PMC PMC10755001
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Introduction: The proliferation of gender-fair language as a medium of communication that represents all genders can be considered as an exciting development in today's rapidly changing world. In this context, the use of the gender asterisk has become especially prominent in German, it being a grammatical gender language. However, critics often argue that gender-fair language makes texts less comprehensible and decreases its aesthetic appeal. The present study tests this assumption for the German language and is the first one to test the influence of an academic background on the comprehensibility of gender-fair language. Method: A text, either written in gender-fair language using the gender star in its singular and plural form or a version using only masculine-only forms, was randomly assigned to 81 adults without an academic background and 82 adults with an academic background (77% women in both groups). Participants were asked to fill out a web-based questionnaire answering questions on text comprehensibility and on their attitudes toward gender-fair language. Results: The results show no statistically significant difference in comprehensibility ratings between participants who read a text in gender-fair language and those who read a text in masculine-only language. In addition, attitudes toward gender-fair language did not affect comprehensibility ratings in participants who read the text written in gender-fair language using the gender star. Further, the academic background had no effect on the assessment of gender-fair language. Discussion: To conclude, the present study suggests that there is no evidence that gender-fair language reduces the comprehensibility of texts.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1234860

Cites

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 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 Pabst and Kollmayer, 2023

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that texts using the gender asterisk did not impair subjective comprehensibility for adults with or without an academic background. It does not establish that all gender-fair forms pose no linguistic barrier: the same section notes that some forms have negatively affected comprehensibility in previous studies. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Pabst and Kollmayer (2023) found that comprehensibility, word and sentence difficulty of texts were rated similarly by participants with and without an academic background, and neither depended on the text version (generic masculine vs. gender asterisks) nor on attitudes toward gender-inclusive language.

    “Comprehensibility, word and sentence difficulty was rated similarly by both groups and neither depended on the text version nor on attitudes toward gender-inclusive language.”

    From What affects people’s use of and attitudes toward gender-inclusive language? A literature review (2025) · cites this paper as Pabst and Kollmayer (2023)

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • 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 Pabst and Kollmayer, 2023

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. Benjamin R. (2012). Reconstructing readability: recent developments and recommendations in the analysis of text difficulty. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 24, 63– 88. 10.1007/s10648-011-9181-8 · DOI
  2. Braun F. Oelkers S. Rogalski K. Bosak J. Sczesny S. (2007). “Aus Gründen der Verständlichkeit…”: der einfluss maskuliner und alternativer personenbezeichnungen auf die kognitive verarbeitung von texten [“For reasons of intelligibility…”: how masculine generics and alternative forms affect the cognitive processing of a text]. Psychologische Rundschau 58, 183– 189. 10.1026/0033-3042.58.3.183 · DOI
  3. Braun F. Sczesny S. Stahlberg D. (2005). Cognitive effects of masculine generics in German: an overview of empirical findings. Communications 30, 1– 21. 10.1515/comm.2005.30.1.1 · DOI
  4. Cohen J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 1, 98– 101. 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Faul F. Erdfelder E. Buchner A. Lang A. -G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav. Res. Methods 41, 1149– 1160. 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 19897823 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Field A. P. (2017). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. London: SAGE Publications.
  7. Friedrich M. C. G. Drößler V. Oberlehberg N. Heise E. (2021). The influence of the gender asterisk (“Gendersternchen”) on comprehensibility y and interest. Front. Psychol. 12: 760062. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.760062 34970191 PMC8713644 · DOI
  8. Friedrich M. C. G. Heise E. (2019). Does the use of gender-fair language influence the comprehensibility of texts? Swiss J. Psychol. 78, 51– 60. 10.1024/1421-0185/a000223 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Friedrich M. C. G. Heise E. (2022). The influence of comprehensibility on interest and comprehension. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 1− 14. 10.1024/1010-0652/a000349 · DOI
  10. Gabriel U. Gygax P. Kuhn E. A. (2018). Neutralizing linguistic sexism: promising but cumbersome? Group Process. Intergr. Relat. 21, 844– 858. 10.1177/1368430218771742 · DOI
  11. Gabriel U. Gygax P. Sarrasin O. Garnham A. Oakhill J. (2008). Au-pairs are rarely male: role names' gender stereotype information across three languages. Behav. Res. Methods 40, 206– 212. 10.3758/BRM.40.1.206 18411544 · DOI
  12. Gygax P. M. Elmiger D. Zufferey S. Garnham A. Sczesny S. von Stockhausen L.. (2019). A language index of grammatical gender dimensions to study the impact of grammatical gender on the way we perceive women and men. Front. Psychol. 10: 1604. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01604 31379661 PMC6644918 · DOI
  13. Hellinger M. Bußmann H. (2001/2002/2003). Gender Across Languages: The Linguistic Representation of Women and Men, Vol. 1, 2, 3. Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins. 10.1075/impact.11.05hel · DOI
  14. Horvath L. Merkel E. F. Maass A. Sczesny S. (2016). Does gender-fair language pay off? the social perception of professions from a cross-linguistic perspective. Front. Psychol. 6: 2018. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02018 26834662 PMC4720790 · DOI
  15. Horvath L. K. Sczesny S. (2015). Reducing women's lack of fit with leadership positions? effects of the wording of job advertisements. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 25, 316– 328. 10.1080/1359432X.2015.1067611 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Keith N. Hartwig K. Richter T. (2022). Ladies first or ladies last: do masculine generics evoke a reduced and later retrieval of female exemplars? Collabra Psychol. 8: 32964. 10.1525/collabra.32964 · DOI
  17. Kintsch W. (1998). Comprehension – A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  18. Klimmt C. Pompetzki V. Blake C. (2008). Geschlechterrepräsentation in nachrichtentexten [representation of gender in news texts]. Medien and Kommunikationswissenschaft 56, 3– 20. 10.5771/1615-634x-2008-1-3 · DOI
  19. Knussen C. Yule F. MacKenzie J. Wells M. (2004). An analysis of intentions to recycle household waste: the roles of past behaviour, perceived habit, and perceived lack of facilities. J. Environ. Psychol. 24, 237– 246. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2003.12.001 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Kolek V. (2019). Discourse of non-heteronormative labelling in German-language press: the case of Gendersternchen. Slovenšèina 7, 118– 140. 10.4312/slo2.0.2019.2.118-140 · DOI
  21. Kollmayer M. Pfaffel A. Schober B. Brandt L. (2018). Breaking away from the male stereotype of a specialist: gendered language affects performance in a thinking task. Front. Psychol. 9: 985. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00985 29971027 PMC6018092 · DOI
  22. Körner A. Abraham B. Rummer R. Strack F. (2022). Gender representations elicited by the gender star form. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 41, 553– 571. 10.1177/0261927X221080181 · DOI
  23. McNamara D. Magliano J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 51, 297– 384. 10.1016/S0079-7421(09)51009-2 · DOI
  24. Misersky J. Majid A. Snijders T. M. (2019). Grammatical gender in German influences how role-nouns are interpreted: evidence from ERPs. Discourse Process 56, 643– 654. 10.1080/0163853X.2018.1541382 · DOI
  25. Porter S. R. Whitcomb M. E. (2005). Non-response in student surveys: the role of demographics, engagement and personality. Res. High. Educ. 46, 127– 152. 10.1007/s11162-004-1597-2 · DOI
  26. Pöschko H. Prieler V. (2018). Zur Verständlichkeit und Lesbarkeit von geschlechtergerecht formulierten Schulbuchtexten [On the comprehensibility and readability of gender-fair schoolbook texts]. Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung 8, 5– 18. 10.1007/s35834-017-0195-2 · DOI
  27. Posselt G. (2017). Renditeorientierte Führungsstrategien: Kennzahlen motivierend einsetzen [Return-Oriented Management Strategies: Using Key Figures in a Motivating Way]. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.
  28. Prewitt-Freilino J. L. Caswell T. A. Laakso E. K. (2012). The gendering of language: a comparison of gender equality in countries with gendered, natural gender, and genderless languages. Sex Role. 66, 268– 281. 10.1007/s11199-011-0083-5 · DOI
  29. Reber R. Greifeneder R. (2017). Processing fluency in education: how metacognitive feelings shape learning, belief formation, and affect. Educ. Psychol. 52, 84– 103. 10.1080/00461520.2016.1258173 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Sarrasin O. Gabriel U. Gygax P. (2012). Sexism and attitudes toward gender-neutral language: the case of English, French, and German. Swiss J. Psychol. 71, 113– 124. 10.1024/1421-0185/a000078 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Sato S. Gabriel U. Gygax P. M. (2016). Altering male-dominant representations: a study on nominalized adjectives and participles in first and second language German. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 35, 667– 685. 10.1177/0261927X15625442 · DOI
  32. Schurer T. Opitz B. Schubert T. (2020). Working memory capacity but not prior knowledge impact impact on reader's attention and text comprehension. Front. Educ. 5: 26. 10.3389/feduc.2020.00026 · DOI
  33. Sczesny S. Formanowicz M. Moser F. (2016). Can gender-fair language reduce gender stereotyping and discrimination? Front. Psychol. 7: 25. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00025 26869947 PMC4735429 · DOI
  34. Sczesny S. Moser F. Wood W. (2015). Beyond sexist beliefs: how do people decide to use gender-inclusive language? Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 41, 943– 954. 10.1177/0146167215585727 26015331 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Stahlberg D. Braun F. Irmen L. Sczesny S. (2007). “Representation of the sexes in language,” in Social communication, ed K. Fiedler (New York, NY: Psychology Press), 163– 187.
  36. Steiger-Loerbroks V. von Stockhausen L. (2014). Mental representations of gender-fair nouns in German legal language: an eye-movement and questionnaire-based study. Linguistische Berichte 237, 57– 80. 10.46771/2366077500237_4 · DOI
  37. Stormbom C. (2019). Language change in L2 academic writing: the case of epicene pronouns. J. Engl. Acad. Purp. 39, 95– 105. 10.1016/j.jeap.2019.02.001 · DOI
  38. Stout J. G. Dasgupta N. (2011). When he doesn't mean you: gender-exclusive language as ostracism. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 37, 757– 769. 10.1177/0146167211406434 21558556 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Swim J. K. Mallet R. Stangor C. (2004). Understanding subtle sexism: detection and use of sexist language. Sex Role. 51, 117– 128. 10.1023/B:SERS.0000037757.73192.06 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Vergoossen H. P. Renström E. A. Lindqvist A. Sendén M. G. (2020). Four dimensions of criticism against gender-fair language. Sex Role. 83, 328– 337. 10.1007/s11199-019-01108-x · DOI · Paper page
  41. Vervecken D. Gygax P. Gabriel U. Guillod M. Hannover B. (2015). Warm-hearted businessmen, competitive housewives? effects of gender-fair language on adolescents' perceptions of occupations. Front. Psychol. 6: 1437. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01437 26441805 PMC4585286 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pabst, L. M., & Kollmayer, M.
Affiliations
University of Vienna (AT)
Corresponding author
Kollmayer, Marlene
ORCID
Kollmayer, Marlene
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2023-12-15
Volume
14
Pages
1234860-1234860
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1234860
PMC
PMC10755001
OpenAlex
W4389819444
Cited by
16
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2
FWCI
6.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Studies in Language
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistic research and analysis
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Linguistic Variation and Morphology
Keywords
gender-inclusive language, text comprehensibility, academic background, German language, grammatical gender, inclusive 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