Does sexist language reflect personal characteristics?

George Fox College
Sex Roles (Impact Factor: 1.47). 09/1990; 23(7):389-396. DOI: 10.1007/BF00289227

ABSTRACT We investigated whether or not sexist language in written form can be linked to traditional views of sex roles, assertiveness, psychological androgyny, Christian beliefs, or sexist language in oral form. In Experiment 1, undergraduates were given an essay designed to test written sexist language and several pencil-and-paper personality inventories. No relationship between sexist language and interpersonal assertiveness or psychological androgyny was found. However, those who avoided sexist language were less traditional in their sex role perceptions scored lower on a scale of Christian beliefs. In Experient 2, the method of measuring sexist language was expanded by using three essay responses and a brief oral interview. Those who used sexist language in written form were more likely than others to use sexist language in oral form on some responses. Interpretations and implications of the findings are discussed.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    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.
    Psychology of Women Quarterly 08/2004; 28(3):233 - 239. · 2.12 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the present research we examined the association between Modern Sexist beliefs and identifying and engaging in subtle sexist behavior. In Study 1, we found that those who endorsed Modern Sexist beliefs were less likely to detect the occurrence of normative sexist behavior (i.e., the use of sexist language), and this oversight was a function of their failure to define such behavior as sexist. In Study 2, we found that those who endorsed Modern Sexist beliefs were more likely to use sexist language and less likely to use nonsexist language. Use of nonsexist language was a function of personal definitions of sexist language. Results are discussed in terms of motivations to self-correct discriminatory behavior and conceptualizations of current forms of sexism.
    Sex Roles 01/2004; 51(3):117-128. · 1.47 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to examine sports symbols of colleges and universities for evidence of sexism and to identify factors that differentiated schools with andwithout sexist nicknames for their athletic teams. Data on team names and eight measures of womens athleticism were collected from 112 colleges and universities for the 2000–2001 academic year. MANCOVA results revealed that womens athleticism was stronger at schools with nonsexist nicknames for seven of the eight measures, although only one statistically significant difference was observed. Schools with nonsexist nicknames had a significantly higher percentage of assistant coaches who were women. Discussion focuses on why there may be more athletic opportunities and athletic resources for women at schools with nonsexist nicknames.
    Sex Roles 11/2004; 51(11):697-708. · 1.47 Impact Factor