What affects people’s use of and attitudes toward gender-inclusive language? A literature review

Approximately 40% of statements made by participants in Vergoossen et al. (2020) were categorized as emphasizing the traditional use of language, including the belief that linguistic change is too difficult.

“Approximately 40% of statements made by participants in this study were categorized as emphasizing the traditional use of language, including the belief that linguistic change is too difficult.”

• cites Vergoossen et al., 2020 sourceSupported

Gustafsson Sendén et al. (2015) reported an even stronger correlation between attitudes and self-reported linguistic behavior in users of Swedish.

“In a similar study, Gustafsson Sendén et al. (2015) reported an even stronger correlation between attitudes and self-reported linguistic behavior in users of Swedish.”

• cites Gustafsson Sendén et al., 2015 sourceSupported

Vergoossen et al. (2020) identified categories similar to Blaubergs' within broader dimensions, such as acceptance of sexism or cisgenderism, and the belief that generic formulations are not sexist.

“Vergoossen et al. (2020) again identified categories similar to Blaubergs’ within broader dimensions, such as acceptance of sexism or cisgenderism, and the belief that generic formulations are not sexist.”

• cites Vergoossen et al., 2020 sourceSupported

Some studies indicate only a partial mitigating effect of gender-fair forms.

“however, some studies indicate only a partial mitigating effect (e.g., Abbondanza et al., 2025)”

• cites Abbondanza et al., 2025 sourceSupported

Only 6.3% of participants in Vergoossen et al. (2020) found gender-inclusive language to be disruptive to communication.

“only a small proportion of participants, 6.3%, found gender-inclusive language to be disruptive to communication.”

• cites Vergoossen et al., 2020 sourcePartly supported

  The Results report that 6.3% (13 of 208) of negative arguments were classified as ‘Distractor in Communication.’ The Participants and Procedure section says the analysis counted arguments rather than participants, some of whom gave multiple arguments. The claim therefore uses the right percentage and theme but incorrectly presents it as a percentage of participants. (LLM, conf=0.91)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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);”

• cites Friedrich and Heise, 2019 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Pabst and Kollmayer, 2023 sourcePartly supported

  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
• cites Renström et al., 2022 sourcePartly supported

  The Results and discussion for Study 2 report that ratings of difficulty reading sentences with hen were very low, supporting the narrower point that this pronoun was not difficult to read in the study. The paper does not establish that gender-fair forms generally pose no linguistic barrier regardless of educational background; its reported background-variable analysis does not include education. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

In Gustafsson Sendén et al. (2015) and Renström et al. (2022), women reported using hen more frequently than men.

“In both studies, women reported using hen more frequently than men.”

• cites Gustafsson Sendén et al., 2015 sourceSupported
• cites Renström et al., 2022 sourcePartly supported

  Study 3 Results (Section 4.2, Table 9) say women used hen more frequently than men in a sentence-completion task, although the gender effect disappeared after belief measures were added to the model. The study measured spontaneous use, not participants’ self-reported frequency of use, so it does not support that part of the claim. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

In Gustafsson Sendén et al. (2015) and Renström et al. (2022), women consistently expressed more positive attitudes toward the pronoun hen than men.

“Regardless of this distinction, women consistently expressed more positive attitudes toward the pronoun than men.”

• cites Gustafsson Sendén et al., 2015 sourcePartly supported

  The Results (‘Predictors Associated with Attitudes and Use’; page not specified) report that women were more positive toward hen than men in an initial model. However, gender became an insignificant predictor after sexism and political orientation were included, and the passage does not establish a consistent difference across years. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Renström et al., 2022 sourceSupported

Renström et al. (2022) found no significant relationship between gender identity strength and attitudes toward hen.

“While Renström et al. (2022) found no significant relationship between gender identity strength and attitudes toward hen”

• cites Renström et al., 2022 sourcePartly supported

  Study 1’s Results and discussion (Table 2) found no significant association between gender identity strength and directly assessed attitudes toward either meaning of hen. But Study 2’s Results and discussion (Table 5) found a significant association with negative valence toward the specific meaning of hen, an indirect attitude measure. The claim is accurate for Study 1’s direct measures, but too broad as a summary of the paper. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

In Gustafsson Sendén et al. (2015) and Renström et al. (2022), the effect of gender on hen use lost statistical significance when other factors-such as sexism, cisgenderism, or general interest in gender-related issues-were accounted for.

“However, the effect of gender lost statistical significance when other factors—such as sexism, cisgenderism, or general interest in gender-related issues—were accounted for.”

• cites Gustafsson Sendén et al., 2015 sourceSupported
• cites Renström et al., 2022 sourceSupported

Gustafsson Sendén et al. (2015) reported that gender identity strength was an even stronger predictor of attitudes than biological sex.

“Gustafsson Sendén et al. (2015) reported that gender identity strength was an even stronger predictor of attitudes than biological sex.”

• cites Gustafsson Sendén et al., 2015 sourcePartly supported

  The Results state that strength of gender identity was a stronger predictor than gender itself, including for attitudes toward the pronoun. But the Methods say participants reported their gender in a free-text response; the study did not identify its comparison variable as biological sex. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

In Gustafsson Sendén et al. (2015), self-reported use of the gender-neutral pronoun hen was negatively correlated with levels of sexism.

“Also, in the Swedish-language study by Gustafsson Sendén et al. (2015), a negative correlation was found between self-reported use of the gender-neutral pronoun hen and levels of sexism, measured by the Swedish version of the Modern Sexism Scale (Ekehammar et al., 2000).”

• cites Gustafsson Sendén et al. (2015) sourceSupported
• cites Ekehammar et al., 2000 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

In Waldendorf (2024), gender-inclusive language is now used far more frequently in national German newspapers across the political spectrum than in the past.

“In a diachronic study of newspaper articles, Waldendorf (2024) showed that gender-inclusive language is now used far more frequently in national German newspapers across the political spectrum than in the past; this shift is attributable to evolving social norms as reflected in editorial guidelines.”

• cites Waldendorf (2024) sourceSupported

Numerous studies confirm the impact of core family structures on attitudes (e.g., on adolescent sexism).

“However, numerous studies confirm the impact of core family structures on attitudes (e.g., on adolescent sexism; Dueñas et al., 2020), suggesting that close relationships could also shape attitudes toward gender-inclusive language.”

• cites Dueñas et al., 2020 sourcePartly supported

  The Discussion reports an association between family socialization—particularly parental reprobation—and adolescent sexist attitudes, and cites related studies. But it says this relationship has been little studied and calls its own findings evidence of a possible influence, so it does not establish that numerous studies confirm an impact of family structures on attitudes. (LLM, conf=0.84)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

In Gustafsson Sendén et al. (2015), respondents' levels of modern sexism were negatively correlated with their attitudes toward the Swedish gender-neutral pronoun hen.

“Similar results were also found in a study on the Swedish gender-neutral pronoun hen, where respondents’ levels of modern sexism were negatively correlated with their attitudes toward hen (Gustafsson Sendén et al., 2015).”

• cites Gustafsson Sendén et al., 2015 sourceSupported

In the 2015 study, interest was found to be the strongest predictor of hen use.

“In fact, in their 2015 study, this interest was found to be the strongest predictor.”

• cites Gustafsson Sendén et al. (2015) sourceSupported

Gustafsson Sendén et al. (2015, 2021) and Renström et al. (2022) showed that greater interest in gender issues was associated with more positive attitudes toward gender-inclusive language.

“Gustafsson Sendén et al. (2015, 2021) and Renström et al. (2022) showed that greater interest in gender issues was associated with more positive attitudes toward gender-inclusive language.”

• cites Gustafsson Sendén et al. (2015, 2021)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Renström et al. (2022) sourceSupported

Interest was a stronger predictor of attitudes than political orientation in these studies.

“Notably, interest was a stronger predictor of attitudes than political orientation in these studies.”

• cites Gustafsson Sendén et al. (2015, 2021)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Renström et al. (2022) sourcePartly supported

  Table 2 (Section 2.2, Study 1) shows that interest in gender issues had larger regression coefficients for attitudes toward both meanings of hen than either measure of political orientation. But Section 1.3 says interest and political orientation were included as controls only in Study 1, so the comparison is not established across the studies. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

An increase in gender-inclusive language use was found in the German parliament since 1980.

“An increase in gender-inclusive language use was found since 1980”

• cites Stecker et al. (2021) sourceSupported

Renström et al. (2022) found political orientation to be predictive of attitudes toward hen only when not accounting for additional factors, such as cisgenderism or preference for linguistic status quo.

“Interestingly, Renström et al. (2022) found political orientation to be predictive only when not accounting for additional factors, such as cisgenderism or preference for linguistic status quo.”

• cites Renström et al. (2022) sourcePartly supported

  Study 1’s Results and discussion (section 2.2, Table 2) show that both political-orientation measures predicted attitudes toward both meanings of hen before cisgenderism and preference for the linguistic status quo were added. After they were added, the left–right measure was no longer significant, but the liberal–conservative measure still predicted attitudes toward the specific meaning of hen. The claim’s “only when” wording overlooks that exception. (LLM, conf=0.92)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the German parliament, more left and centre-left parties (Die Linke, Die Grünen and SPD) used gender-inclusive language more frequently than centre-right (FDP) and conservative parties (CDU/CSU).

“with more left and centre-left parties (Die Linke, Die Grünen and SPD) using it more frequently than centre-right (FDP) and conservative parties (CDU/CSU).”

• cites Stecker et al. (2021) sourceSupported

For both German-speaking and Polish-speaking participants, the more conservative a person, the more negatively they evaluated the described initiative, irrespective of the used language.

“For both German-speaking and Polish-speaking participants, the more conservative a person, the more negatively they evaluated the described initiative, irrespective of the used language.”

• cites Formanowicz et al. (2015) sourceSupported

In an English-speaking study, Renström and Klysing (2024) showed that higher values in right-wing authoritarianism were related to less frequent use of singular they as a gender-neutral pronoun (in favor of gender specific pronouns).

“Moreover, in an English-speaking study Renström and Klysing (2024) showed that higher values in right-wing authoritarianism (RWA; Bizumic and Duckitt, 2018) were related to less frequent use of singular they as a gender-neutral pronoun (in favor of gender specific pronouns).”

• cites Renström and Klysing (2024) sourcePartly supported

  The Results (page unavailable) report that English-language users with higher scores on a combined RWA/binary-gender-views measure were less likely to use singular they in both de-gendering and multi-gendering contexts. The citing sentence attributes that relationship to RWA alone, whereas the reported analysis combines RWA with binary gender views; the paper also says it did not directly compare use of singular they against use of binary pronouns. (LLM, conf=0.85)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Bizumic and Duckitt, 2018 sourceSupported

Age per se is not a reliable predictor of attitudes toward or use of gender-inclusive language.

“Neither gender nor age per se are reliable predictors.”

Gender per se is not a reliable predictor of attitudes toward or use of gender-inclusive language.

“Neither gender nor age per se are reliable predictors.”

• Also stated in: § Sex, gender, and gender identity · hedged

  “In summary, gender per se does not appear to reliably predict attitudes or behavior regarding gender-inclusive language.”

Liberal individuals and institutions use gender-inclusive forms more often.

“Situational factors—such as conversational setting and perceived audience views—and political orientation influence language choices, with liberal individuals and institutions using inclusive forms more often.”

Progressive contexts are linked to greater support for gender-inclusive language.

“Political and social environments play a role, with progressive contexts and early equality legislation linked to greater support.”

People with high and low education levels share similar attitudes toward gender-inclusive language.

“People with high and low education levels share similar attitudes”

Early equality legislation is linked to greater support for gender-inclusive language.

“Political and social environments play a role, with progressive contexts and early equality legislation linked to greater support.”

Situational factors, such as conversational setting and perceived audience views, influence language choices regarding gender-inclusive language.

“Situational factors—such as conversational setting and perceived audience views—and political orientation influence language choices, with liberal individuals and institutions using inclusive forms more often.”

Political and social environments play a role in attitudes toward and use of gender-inclusive language.

“Political and social environments play a role, with progressive contexts and early equality legislation linked to greater support.”

Use of gender-inclusive language has risen over time.

“Use of inclusive language has risen over time, driven by shifting norms and increased exposure.”

Political orientation influences language choices regarding gender-inclusive language.

“Situational factors—such as conversational setting and perceived audience views—and political orientation influence language choices, with liberal individuals and institutions using inclusive forms more often.”

In some more recent studies, gender identity was also used as a predictor of gender-inclusive language attitudes and use.

“In some more recent studies gender identity was also used as a predictor of gender-inclusive language attitudes and use.”

Attitudes toward gender-inclusive language are closely related to actual language use.

“Several studies show that attitudes toward gender-inclusive language are closely related to actual language use.”

Non-academics may use gender-inclusive language more than academics in certain settings.

“non-academics may use inclusive language more than academics in certain settings.”

There is a systematic relation between attitudes and behavior with regard to gender-inclusive language.

“empirical evidence indicates that – in line with the theoretical framework – there is a systematic relation between attitudes and behavior with regard to gender-inclusive language”

The categories of arguments against gender-inclusive language identified by Blaubergs are still relevant.

“As subsequent studies show, these categories are still relevant.”

When gender differences are found, women tend to use gender-inclusive wording more frequently than men (6/9 studies).

“When differences are found (12 out of 17 studies), women tend to express more positive attitudes (6/12) and use gender-inclusive wording more frequently than men (6/9)”

When gender differences are found, women tend to express more positive attitudes toward gender-inclusive language than men (6/12 studies).

“When differences are found (12 out of 17 studies), women tend to express more positive attitudes (6/12) and use gender-inclusive wording more frequently than men (6/9)”

Some studies indicate that the predictive power of gender diminishes or even disappears when overarching ideologies such as sexism or cisgenderism are considered.

“Furthermore, some studies indicate that the predictive power of gender diminishes – or even disappears – when overarching ideologies such as sexism or cisgenderism are considered.”

Gender-inclusive formulations remain infrequent overall.

“and gender-inclusive formulations remain infrequent overall.”

Attitudes and behavior regarding gender-inclusive language appear to be influenced by specific conditions, highlighting the situational and contextual nature of linguistic behavior.

“Attitudes and behavior appear to be influenced by specific conditions, highlighting the situational and contextual nature of linguistic behavior.”

Women's attitudes toward gender-inclusive language tend to be neutral rather than positive.

“However, women’s attitudes tend to be neutral rather than positive”

Beyond Strafelda (2018), no further research was found on the influence of close contacts on attitudes toward gender-inclusive language.

“Beyond this study, we found no further research on the influence of close contacts on attitudes toward gender-inclusive language.”

People with positive attitudes mention how hard it is to change language habits, even though they are motivated to do so (Bruns and Leiting, 2025).

“(Bruns and Leiting, 2025, report that people with positive attitudes mention how hard it is to change language habits, even though they are motivated to do so)”

• cites Bruns and Leiting, 2025 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Biological sex and gender have no simple effects on attitudes toward and use of gender-inclusive language.

“It has also shown some factors that may have been expected to be highly relevant to have no simple effects (biological sex, gender)”

Individuals who attempt to avoid sexist formulations may still use them, particularly under cognitive load.

“Even individuals who attempt to avoid sexist formulations may still use them—particularly under cognitive load”

Sexist beliefs strongly influence both attitudes toward and the use of gender-inclusive language.

“The finding that sexist beliefs strongly influence both attitudes toward and the use of gender-inclusive language underscores how deeply ingrained gender roles remain and how they contribute to the linguistic discrimination of women and non-binary individuals.”

The rise in use of gender-inclusive language is driven by shifting norms and increased exposure.

“Use of inclusive language has risen over time, driven by shifting norms and increased exposure.”

Formal linguistic structures, such as the use of the generic masculine, create asymmetries that further reinforce existing gender disparities.

“formal linguistic structures—such as the use of the generic masculine—create asymmetries that further reinforce existing gender disparities as shown for many languages (Hellinger and Bußmann, 2001).”

• cites Hellinger and Bußmann, 2001Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Masculine personal pronouns in mock job interviews resulted in lower sense of belonging, motivation, and identification with a job among female participants.

“masculine personal pronouns in mock job interviews resulted in a lower sense of belonging, motivation and identification with a job among female participants (Stout and Dasgupta, 2011).”

• cites Stout and Dasgupta, 2011 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

In Sczesny et al. (2015), intention to use gender-inclusive language was strongly associated with positive attitudes.

“The results showed that the intention to use gender-inclusive language was strongly associated with positive attitudes.”

• cites Sczesny et al., 2015 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Traditional generic masculine forms result in male-biased mental representations.

“traditional generic masculine forms result in male biased mental representations and go along with decisions that disadvantage women (Stahlberg et al., 2007).”

• cites Stahlberg et al., 2007Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Traditional generic masculine forms go along with decisions that disadvantage women.

“traditional generic masculine forms result in male biased mental representations and go along with decisions that disadvantage women (Stahlberg et al., 2007).”

• cites Stahlberg et al., 2007Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Blaubergs (1980) identified eight distinct categories of arguments against gender-inclusive language.

“Blaubergs (1980) identified eight distinct categories in which the prevailing arguments against gender-inclusive language could be classified”

• cites Blaubergs, 1980 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

When the feminine form was included alongside the masculine, the effect of lower perceived suitability for female applicants disappeared.

“When the feminine form was included alongside the masculine, this effect disappeared (Horvath and Sczesny, 2016).”

• cites Horvath and Sczesny, 2016 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

The linguistic and methodological breadth of the reviewed studies allows conclusions irrespective of a specific language, method or design.

“This linguistic and methodological breadth allows us to draw conclusions irrespective of a specific language, method or design.”

In Rothmund and Christmann (2002), text versions did not differ in their perceived communicational qualities.

“While text versions did not differ in their perceived communicational qualities, women expressed more positive attitudes toward gender-inclusive language compared to men.”

• cites Rothmund and Christmann, 2002Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Potential female applicants for a high-status position perceived themselves as less suitable than male applicants when the job title was phrased in the masculine form.

“Potential female applicants for a high-status position perceived themselves as less suitable than male applicants when the job title was phrased in the masculine form.”

• cites Horvath and Sczesny, 2016 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

The effect of masculine job titles on perceived suitability is not gender-specific.

“This effect, although less pronounced, is also evident in men’s reactions to female occupational titles (Bem and Bem, 1973), indicating that it is not a gender-specific effect.”

• cites Bem and Bem, 1973 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

The effect of masculine job titles on perceived suitability is also evident, although less pronounced, in men's reactions to female occupational titles.

“This effect, although less pronounced, is also evident in men’s reactions to female occupational titles (Bem and Bem, 1973), indicating that it is not a gender-specific effect.”

• cites Bem and Bem, 1973 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

In Parks and Roberton (1998), 40% of respondents named difficulties associated with change as their primary reason for rejecting gender-inclusive language.

“Parks and Roberton (1998) found that 40% of respondents named the difficulties associated with change as their primary reason for rejecting gender-inclusive language”

• cites Parks and Roberton, 1998 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Some studies observed impaired comprehension in specific conditions with gender-fair forms.

“or observed impaired comprehension in specific conditions (e.g., Friedrich et al., 2024).”

• cites Friedrich et al., 2024 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

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.”

• cites Parks and Roberton, 2004 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Parks and Roberton, 2005 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

In Koeser et al. (2015), overall gender-inclusive formulations were used infrequently (on average, in only 2-3 out of 10 gaps).

“Although overall gender-inclusive formulations were used infrequently (on average, in only 2–3 out of 10 gaps)”

• cites Koeser et al., 2015 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

In Parks and Roberton (2005), men's attitudes varied at slightly below neutral.

“or slightly below neutral (Parks and Roberton, 2005).”

• cites Parks and Roberton, 2005 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

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”

• cites Parks and Roberton, 2004 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Parks and Roberton, 2005 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

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)”

• cites Parks and Roberton, 2004 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

In Sczesny et al. (2015), participants reported neutral attitudes toward gender-inclusive language on average, regardless of gender.

“participants reported neutral attitudes toward gender-inclusive language on average, regardless of gender.”

• cites Sczesny et al., 2015 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

In Rothmund and Christmann (2002), women expressed more positive attitudes toward gender-inclusive language compared to men.

“While text versions did not differ in their perceived communicational qualities, women expressed more positive attitudes toward gender-inclusive language compared to men.”

• cites Rothmund and Christmann, 2002Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

In Steiger and Irmen (2011), within the legal professional sample, female participants were more accepting of gender-exclusive language (the generic masculine) than their male colleagues.

“However, within the legal professional sample, female participants were more accepting of gender-exclusive language (i.e., the generic masculine) than their male colleagues.”

• cites Steiger and Irmen, 2011 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

In Koeser et al. (2015), women who had previously read a gender-inclusive text were more likely to use gender-inclusive language than men in the same condition.

“women who had previously read a gender-inclusive text were more likely to use gender-inclusive language than men in the same condition.”

• cites Koeser et al., 2015 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

In Bruns and Leiting (2024), highest self-reported use and highest actual use of gender-inclusive language in the translation task was found in non-cisgender participants, followed by women, followed by men.

“Highest self-reported use as well as highest actual use of gender-inclusive language in the translation task was found in non-cisgender participants, followed by women, followed by men.”

• cites Bruns and Leiting, 2024 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

In Steiger and Irmen (2011), male and female participants in the trainee and 60+ samples did not differ in their attitudes toward gender-inclusive wording.

“The male and female participants in the trainee and 60 + samples did not differ in their attitudes.”

• cites Steiger and Irmen, 2011 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Sampling methods and demographics may have contributed to the difference in gender identity effects between the two studies.

“However, sampling methods and demographics may have contributed to that.”

In Lee (2007), four out of seven translations showed no gender differences.

“While four out of seven translations (e.g., police officer, firefighter, post officer, and salesperson) showed no gender differences”

• cites Lee, 2007 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

In Cralley and Ruscher (2005), men with higher sexism scores used more sexist terms than those with lower sexism in both written and spoken descriptions.

“In both written and spoken descriptions, men with higher sexism scores used more sexist terms (e.g., girl or babe) than those with lower sexism.”

• cites Cralley and Ruscher (2005) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

In Cralley and Ruscher (2005), when cognitive load was increased, no differences between high-sexism and low-sexism individuals were observed.

“However, when cognitive load was increased, no differences between high-sexism and low-sexism individuals were observed.”

• cites Cralley and Ruscher (2005) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

In Sarrasin et al. (2012), effects due to country and due to grammatical gender cannot be separated.

“Thus, effects due to country and due to grammatical gender cannot be separated.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: English is a natural gender language, while French and German have grammatical gender systems.

The finding that women tend to have more positive attitudes and use gender-inclusive language more frequently is consistent with predictions based on the theory of social identity.

“which is consistent with predictions based on the theory of social identity (Tajfel and Turner, 1979, 1986).”

• cites Tajfel and Turner, 1979, 1986Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

An individual's immediate social environment can shape their attitudes.

“Beyond societal-level influences, an individual’s immediate social environment can also shape their attitudes, a phenomenon consistent with Heider’s (1946) Balance Theory, which postulates that people strive for cognitive balance in their relationships and attitudes and therefore may align their own beliefs.”

• cites Heider’s (1946) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

In Sarrasin et al. (2012), English participants had higher scores for recognition of sexist language than Swiss (German-speaking and French-speaking) participants.

“Results showed higher scores for English than Swiss participants, something which may reflect socio-political differences between the countries but could also reflect effects of grammatical gender with English being a natural gender language and French and German both having a grammatical gender system.”

• cites Sarrasin et al. (2012) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

In Jacobson and Insko (1985), participants with higher sexism scores used the generic masculine pronoun he more frequently than those with lower sexism.

“As expected, participants with higher sexism scores used the generic masculine pronoun he more frequently than those with lower sexism.”

• cites Jacobson and Insko (1985) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

In Hodel et al. (2017), job postings in German-speaking countries were more likely to employ gender-inclusive wording than those in Slavic-speaking countries.

“Results show that job postings in the German-speaking countries were more likely to employ gender-inclusive wording than those in Slavic-speaking countries.”

• cites Hodel et al. (2017) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

In Sczesny et al. (2015), a negative relationship between modern sexism and attitudes toward gender-inclusive language was found.

“Similar to Sarrasin et al. (2012), a negative relationship between modern sexism and attitudes toward gender-inclusive language was found.”

• cites Sarrasin et al. (2012) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Sczesny et al. (2015) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

In Strafelda (2018), no significant results were found for the influence of close relationships with female persons on attitudes toward gender-inclusive language.

“However, no significant results were found, something which the author attributes to limiting factors, including the binary response format, which may not have adequately captured the degree of influence, and the lack of information on whether the influence was perceived as positive or negative.”

• cites Strafelda (2018)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

In Gustafsson Sendén et al. (2015, 2021), over the years the proportion of individuals who do not use gender-neutral hen decreased.

“Gustafsson Sendén et al. (2015, 2021) showed that over the years the proportion of individuals who do not use gender-neutral hen decreased.”

• cites Gustafsson Sendén et al. (2015, 2021)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Only modern sexism had a significant impact on correct identification of sexist language, making it more difficult for those with high modern sexism scores to recognize sexist expressions.

“Regarding the correct identification of sexist language, only modern sexism was found to have a significant impact, making it more difficult for those with high modern sexism scores to recognize sexist expressions.”

• cites Sarrasin et al. (2012) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Steiger and Irmen (2011) found no differences in mean attitude scores toward gender-inclusive language between a group of legal professionals with a university degree and a group of individuals in vocational training without tertiary education.

“The results showed no differences in the mean attitude scores between the groups.”

• cites Steiger and Irmen (2011) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

In Swedish studies examining the use of hen (Gustafsson Sendén et al., 2015, 2021), political orientation was a significant predictor of self-reported frequency of hen usage, with right-wing orientation being associated with less frequent use.

“In Swedish studies examining the use of hen (Gustafsson Sendén et al., 2015, 2021), political orientation also emerged as a significant predictor of self-reported frequency of hen usage, with right-wing orientation being associated with less frequent use.”

• cites Gustafsson Sendén et al. (2015, 2021)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

In a study where participants were exposed to arguments promoting gender-inclusive language (Koeser and Sczesny, 2014), both strong and weaker arguments increased participants' use of gender-inclusive language in a following cloze task.

“Both strong arguments (e.g., gender-inclusive language as a crucial factor for gender equality) and weaker ones (e.g., existing evidence is ideology-free and therefore reliable) increased participants’ use of gender-inclusive language in a following cloze task.”

• cites Koeser and Sczesny, 2014 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

The studies by Gustafsson Sendén et al. (2015, 2021) indicate a positive association between a greater interest in gender issues and more frequent use of hen.

“The studies by Gustafsson Sendén et al. (2015, 2021) also indicate a positive association between a greater interest in gender issues and the more frequent use of hen.”

• cites Gustafsson Sendén et al. (2015, 2021)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

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.”

• cites Rubin et al. (1994) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Research on the topic of political orientation and gender-inclusive language is limited.

“Overall, research on this topic is limited, highlighting research gaps and the need for further investigation.”

The effect of arguments on gender-inclusive language use was more pronounced among women than men.

“This effect was again more pronounced among women than men.”

• cites Koeser and Sczesny, 2014 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Political orientation has proven to be more consistent in predicting behavior (5/5) than attitudes (3/4).

“To summarize, political orientation has proven to be more consistent in predicting behavior (5/5) than attitudes (3/4).”

Koeser et al. (2015) found that reading gender-inclusive texts led participants-especially women-to use gender-inclusive language more frequently.

“Koeser et al. (2015) found that reading gender-inclusive texts led participants—especially women—to use gender-inclusive language more frequently.”

• cites Koeser et al. (2015) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Research on situational influences on gender-inclusive language remains limited.

“However, research on this topic remains limited, and additional investigation is required to corroborate these effects.”

An earlier intervention study using videos and audio messages to persuade participants to adopt more favorable attitudes toward gender-inclusive language did not yield significant effects (Parks and Roberton, 2002).

“Similarly, an earlier intervention study using videos and audio messages to persuade participants to adopt more favorable attitudes toward gender-inclusive language did not yield significant effects either (Parks and Roberton, 2002).”

• cites Parks and Roberton, 2002 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Steiger and Irmen (2011) found no evidence supporting a relation between educational level and gender-inclusive language use.

“Similarly, the study by Steiger and Irmen (2011) found no evidence supporting a relation between educational level and gender-inclusive language use.”

• cites Steiger and Irmen (2011) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

The available evidence suggests that language use is more susceptible to situational influences (3/3) than attitudes (1/3).

“The available evidence suggests that language use is more susceptible to situational influences (3/3) than attitudes (1/3).”

Kuhn and Gabriel (2014) observed differences in the frequency of gender-inclusive language use between apprentices and university students.

“Differences in the frequency of gender-inclusive language use between apprentices and university students have been observed in a German speaking study by Kuhn and Gabriel (2014).”

• cites Kuhn and Gabriel (2014) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Language change may be challenging for all who have been socialized in traditional gender-exclusive language.

“namely that language change may be challenging for all who have been socialized in traditional gender-exclusive language”

Linguistic behavior is primarily shaped by the habitual reproduction of underlying gender stereotypes which continue to persist in society and manifest in language use.

“The existing evidence shows that linguistic behavior is primarily shaped by the habitual reproduction of underlying gender stereotypes which continue to persist in society and manifest in language use.”

Resistance toward newly created strategies of gender-inclusive language seems to particularly occur among older generations.

“and this seems to particularly lead to resistance toward newly created strategies of gender-inclusive language among older generations.”

The reviewed studies suggest that in combination with passing time, policies and educational programs in schools are likely to improve attitudes toward and the use of gender-inclusive language.

“The reviewed studies suggest that in combination with passing time such measures are likely to improve attitudes toward and the use of gender-inclusive language.”

Policies can motivate people to invest the effort to use gender-inclusive language.

“Policies can motivate people to invest the effort because they do not want to behave in a sexist way”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: People do not want to behave in a sexist way.