Content uploaded by Lisa Kristina Horvath
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lisa Kristina Horvath on Jul 01, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 1
Reducing Women’s Lack of Fit with Leadership? Effects of the Wording of Job
Advertisements
Lisa Kristina Horvath
University of Bern & Technical University of Munich
Sabine Sczesny
University of Bern
Acknowledgement
This work was conducted within the Marie Curie Initial Training Network:
Language, Cognition, & Gender, ITN LCG, funded by the European Community’s Seventh
Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) (www.itn-lcg.eu). We thank Anne Maass, Elisa
Merkel and Friederike Braun for their helpful comments on analyses and earlier versions of
the manuscript.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lisa K. Horvath,
who is now at the Technical University Munich, Arcisstraße 21, D- 80333 Munich.
Contact: lisa.horvath@tum.de
This paper is accepted for publication in the
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology.
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 2
Abstract
Linguistic forms which refer to persons impact mental representations of these persons:
When masculine generics are used, women tend to be cognitively underrepresented,
whereas feminine-masculine word pairs are associated with a higher cognitive inclusion of
women. The present research investigates whether linguistic forms affect women’s
perceived lack of fit with leadership positions, which is particularly pronounced for high-
status leadership positions. In a hiring-simulation experiment (N = 363), we tested the
effects of different linguistic forms used in German-language job advertisements: (1)
masculine forms (e.g., Geschäftsführer, CEO, masc.’), (2) masculine forms with (m/f) (e.g.,
Geschäftsführer (m/w), ‘CEO, masc. (m/f)’), and word pairs (e.g.,
Geschäftsführerin/Geschäftsführer, ‘CEO, fem./CEO, masc.’). The job ads announced
either a high-status or a low-status leadership position. Results showed that female
applicants were perceived to fit less well with the high-status position than male applicants
when the masculine form or the masculine form with (m/f) was used––even though they
were perceived to be equally competent. However, female and male applicants were
perceived as fitting the high-status leadership position similarly well when word pairs were
used.
Keywords: leadership, lack of fit, hiring, gender-fair language
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 3
Reducing Women’s Lack of Fit with Leadership Positions? Effects of the Wording of
Job Advertisements
Although women have increasingly gained access to leadership positions, they are
still underrepresented in top management (European Commission, 2011). This may be due
to a male bias in hiring leaders which is caused by a persisting ‘lack of fit’ between
women’s stereotypical attributes and attributes required for leadership positions (Heilman,
1983, 2012). Another line of research documents that linguistic forms used to refer to
women and men can shape mental representations: When masculine forms are used as
generics for both genders, readers or hearers think predominantly of men (i.e., male bias).
Gender-fair forms (e.g., feminine-masculine word pairs), on the other hand, are associated
with a greater cognitive inclusion of women and weaken the male bias in mental
representations (for a review, see Stahlberg, Braun, Irmen, & Sczesny, 2007). This finding
raises the question whether gender-fair linguistic forms, which help to overcome male
biases in mental representations, may also help to overcome the perceived lack of fit for
women with leadership, which is reflected in male biases in personnel selection procedures
for leadership positions.
Women’s Lack of Fit with Leadership Positions
Women’s underrepresentation in leadership positions is a widespread phenomenon:
In the European Union, for instance, women overall hold 32 % of leadership positions
across countries. However, the higher the hierarchical level and the higher the status of a
position, the lower the proportion of women: Only 12% of board members and just over 3%
of board chairs are women (European Commission, 2011). The ‘lack of fit’ model
(Heilman 1983, 2012) provides a theoretical basis for this phenomenon by explaining why
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 4
and how gender stereotypes can compromise women’s career progress: Women are
typically described with communal traits (e.g., helpful, kind, likeable), whereas men are
typically ascribed agentic attributes (e.g., assertive, ambitious, dominant). These
stereotypes about women and men are not only different, “but they tend to be oppositional,
with women seen as lacking what is thought to be most prevalent in men” (Heilman, 2012,
p. 115). Attributes required of a successful manager still correlate more strongly with the
agentic traits ascribed to men than with the communal traits typically ascribed to women.
This is also referred to as the “think manager – think male” phenomenon (TMTM, Schein,
1973, 2001).
In the leadership context, women seem to fit the common image of a successful
manager or leader less well than men do. The perceived lack of fit (Heilman, 1983, 2012)
or incongruity (Eagly & Karau, 2002) between women’s assumed capabilities and the
demands of leadership positions evokes the impression that women are not equipped to
handle such male-typed tasks. This fact has various negative consequences for women
aspiring to these positions (see Eagly & Karau, 2002, Heilman, 2012, for overviews): it
fosters a male bias in hiring decisions (Schein, 2001), wage decisions (Eagly & Karau,
2002; Stanley & Jarrell, 1998) and employment-related recommendations (Heilman &
Okimoto, 2008; Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, & Tamkins, 2004).
Nowadays approval of women in middle management and lower-status leadership
positions is increasing (Eagly & Carli, 2007), but lack of fit perceptions for women seem to
persist when it comes to high-status leadership positions that are characterized by authority
and prestige (Heilman & Parks-Stamm, 2007). In contrast to top management positions,
middle management positions are described as requiring more interpersonal skills, which is
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 5
congruent with the feminine stereotype (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Women’s persisting lack of
fit with high-status leadership positions (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman, 2012; Koenig,
Eagly, Mitchell, & Ristikari, 2011) is not equally reflected in all dimensions or stages in
personnel selection procedures for high-status leadership positions: Research has revealed
that in hiring-simulation paradigms where female and male applicants are described as well
qualified for the job and therefore perceived as similarly competent, female applicants are
evaluated less favorably for the positions than their male counterparts. For instance, studies
by Glick, Zion, & Nelson (1988) as well as by Rudman & Glick (1999, 2001) showed that
female applicants were perceived as less hirable for typically male positions than male
applicants, even though evaluations of female and male applicants’ competence were
similar. Biernat and Fuegen (2001) asked participants to evaluate applicants and draw up a
shortlist (i.e., to preselect a number of applicants for the final hiring decision) as well as to
make a hiring decision. They found differences between these two dimensions: Female
applicants were more likely to be shortlisted, but less likely to be hired than male
applicants. Thus, women’s lack of fit with leadership—respectively a male bias—appears
to prevail in later stages of personnel selection procedures, where males are preferred over
females even though they were judged or treated equally in earlier stages of the selection
procedure. The male bias seems to affect the preference for a candidate, but not judgments
of candidates’ competence, just as there is a male bias in selection and hiring decisions, but
not in shortlisting.
In general, the lack of fit model (Heilman, 1983, 2012) posits that, based on the
perceived job requirements, a person’s fit with a job is assessed by taking his/her perceived
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 6
attributes into account. Hence, the more male-typed a job is deemed to be—be it because of
work responsibilities (Gaucher, Friesen, & Kay, 2011), the wording of the job description
(Bem & Bem, 1973), the proportion of men in the occupation (Cejka & Eagly, 1999), or the
level and function of the position within an organization—the greater women’s perceived
lack of fit (Heilman, 2012). This raises the question whether linguistic forms used in
advertisements of leadership positions can impact the perceived fit of women with the
respective position.
Linguistic Forms Referring to Women and Men
Languages differ in the linguistic forms they provide to refer to women and men. In
languages with grammatical gender—many European languages such as Italian, French,
Spanish or German, or Polish—most human nouns and pronouns are gender-marked and
are differentiated for feminine and masculine. In English, on the other hand, which is a
natural gender language, most human nouns are gender-neutral, and gender marking is
largely restricted to pronouns (he/she) (see Stahlberg et al., 2007, for an overview). In both
types of languages, however, masculine-male forms (nouns and pronouns) are used as
generics, which means that they are used as forms referring to both women and men (e.g.,
German Lehrer 'teachers, masc.', English a politician … he), a practice, which is not
regarded as gender-fair. A gender-fair alternative would be to use word pairs which
combine a feminine and a masculine noun (German Lehrerin/Lehrer 'teacher, fem./teacher,
masc.') or a feminine and a masculine pronoun (he/she) (see Braun, Sczesny, & Stahlberg,
2005, for an overview of gender-fair forms in German; see UNESCO, 1999, for an
overview of recommendations for English).
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 7
While masculine generics have the advantage of being shorter, they are ambiguous
because masculine forms serve a double function: They can refer specifically to male
persons, but also (generically) to mixed groups and to persons whose gender is unknown or
irrelevant (Stahlberg et al., 2007). Past research on the interpretation of masculine generics
in comparison to gender-fair forms has consistently demonstrated that masculine forms are
associated with a male bias in mental representations. Gender-fair forms, on the other hand,
are associated with a higher mental inclusion of women. This was shown for many
languages including English (e.g., Crawford & English, 1984; Gastil, 1990; Gabriel,
Gygax, Sarrasin, Garnham & Oakhill, 2008; Hamilton, 1988; Ng, 1990), French (e.g.,
Chatard, Guimond, & Martinot, 2005; Gabriel et al., 2008), Italian (e.g., Merkel, Horvath,
Maass,& Sczesny, 2014), and German (e.g., Braun et al., 2005; Gabriel et al., 2008; Irmen
& Rossberg, 2004; Heise, 2000).
A series of experimental studies on German conducted by Braun and colleagues
(2005) revealed that masculine forms are associated with lesser cognitive inclusion and
slower identification of women as members of certain groups (such as athletes, actors or
other occupational groups); also, more women were mentioned when gender-fair forms
(e.g., word pairs) were used instead of masculine forms. This effect was particularly
pronounced in male-dominated fields, where women constituted the minority. Recent
research confirmed these results, but revealed that the ascribed competence of job holders
was independent of the linguistic label (Merkel et al., 2012), probably because competence
ascriptions are rather stable (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002). Moreover, schoolchildren
perceived women as more successful in typically male professions (e.g., physicist, pilot,
firefighter) when the professions were presented with word pairs rather than masculine
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 8
forms (Vervecken, Hannover & Wolter, 2013). Taken together, these findings indicate that
linguistic forms play a crucial role for perceptions of the gender-typicality of professions
(i.e., gender ratio), for ascriptions of success in professions, but not for competence
ascriptions.
To our knowledge, only one study has investigated the impact of linguistic forms on
perceived fit with leadership positions: Asked to name politicians who might run for
chancellorship in Germany, participants suggested more female candidates when word
pairs (Politikerin oder Politiker ‘politician, fem. or politician, masc.’; Bundeskanzlerin oder
Bundeskanzler ‘chancellor, fem. or chancellor, masc.’) were used than when masculine
forms were used. In this study suggesting politicians as leaders was male-biased with
masculine forms, but not with gender-fair forms such as word pairs (Experiment 3, Braun,
Sczesny, & Stahlberg, 2002). In line with this finding, the present research aims at
examining whether the use of linguistic forms in job advertisements for leadership positions
affects the selection of applicants in an employment context.
Linguistic Forms in Job Advertisements
Analyses of job advertisements have shown that vacant positions are still often
announced with masculine forms (e.g., for Italian: Mucchi-Faina, 2005; for German:
Bundesministerium für Frauen und Öffentlichen Dienst, 2009; Hellinger, 2004, Lujanksy-
Lammer, 2006), although this is prohibited by law (e.g., in Austria,
Gleichbehandlungsgesetz, 2004). This is particularly true for the leadership context. A
recent study conducted in Austria documented a 27:1-ratio of masculine to gender-fair
forms in job advertisements for leadership positions. In other work domains or types of
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 9
positions there was no such extreme predominance of masculine (over gender-fair) forms
(Bundesministerium für Frauen und Öffentlichen Dienst, 2009).
In addition to masculine forms and word pairs, another form occurs in many job
advertisements which has not yet received any attention in research: the masculine form
followed by (m/f), to indicate ‘male/female’ in the respective language (e.g., German
Geschäftsführer (m/w), 'CEO (m/f)'). This form has been documented in job advertisements
in various languages, including Dutch (Pauwels, 1998), Spanish (European Parliament,
2008), and German (Bundesministerium für Frauen und Öffentlichen Dienst, 2009;
Hellinger, 2004; Lujanksy-Lammer, 2006). The addition of (m/f) is supposed to make the
generic use of the masculine ‘more gender-fair’ by pointing to the inclusion of both
genders. But it is doubtful whether this form is equally efficient as word pairs, given that
the reader initially encounters and processes the masculine form and only subsequently
receives a minimal linguistic cue to the inclusion of women.
The overwhelming prevalence of masculine forms in advertisements for leadership
positions—whether followed by (m/f) or not—strongly suggests that linguistic forms may
play a critical role in sustaining women’s perceived lack of fit with leadership.
Experimental research on English-language job advertisements has shown that the forms
used in job ads impacted women’s self perceived fit: Women were more interested in
typically male jobs when women were explicitly mentioned (e.g., linewoman, frontwoman)
compared to job advertisements in gender-neutral (e.g., lineworker, frameworker) or male-
only formulations (e.g., lineman, frontman) (Bem & Bem, 1973). Moreover women felt
more ostracized (i.e., ignored), were less motivated to pursue the job, and identified less
with the job when masculine forms (e.g., he and his) were used in job descriptions and in
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 10
mock job interviews rather than gender-fair forms (e.g., he/she and his/her). Women also
reported lower expectations regarding their future feeling of belonging to the workplace
(Stout & Dasgupta, 2011).
To sum up, the use of different linguistic forms in job advertisements has been
shown to impact the self-perceived fit of applicants; but so far nothing is known about the
effects it may have on recruiters’ evaluations and their perception of the applicants’ fit with
a position. This question is of practical importance because job advertisements can easily
be formulated in a gender-fair way without causing major controversies (compared to
quotas, for example) or expenses for the organization.
Aims and Overview of Research
The present research addresses the question whether the forms used to describe
leadership positions in job advertisements impact the perceived fit of female and male
applicants with these positions. We conducted a hiring-simulation study to investigate
whether the wording in German-language job advertisements affect evaluations of
applicants in a personnel selection procedure. We compared three linguistic versions of
advertisements for a leadership position — masculine forms, word pairs, and masculine
forms with (m/f). As women’s perceived lack of fit with leadership positions is particularly
pronounced for positions high in status and authority (Heilman & Parks-Stamm, 2007), we
also varied the status of the position: a project leader position with lower status versus a
CEO position with higher status. We assumed the perceived suitability of female and male
applicants to be moderated by linguistic form and status of leadership position. While we
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 11
expected no differences for the low-status position, our Hypothesis for the high status
position reads as follows:
Female applicants for high-status positions are perceived as less suitable than male
applicants when masculine forms or masculine forms with (m/f) are used in the
advertisement; this difference is absent when a word pair is used.
Past research documents that male applicants were preferred as leaders even though
female and male applicants’ competence was evaluated similarly (e.g., Rudman & Glick,
1999, 2001). Moreover, competence ratings were not affected by different forms of job
titles in German (Merkel et al., 2012). Therefore, applicants’ perceived competence should
not be impacted by linguistic forms.
Although it would seem to be plausible to assume that women favor women in
selection procedures more than men do, women and men do not differ in their evaluations
of applicants and hiring decisions, since they share the same societal gender stereotypes
(see Heilman, 2012). Numerous studies have revealed that women and men evaluate and
hire female and male applicants in much the same way. A meta-analysis with 49 studies
showed that—against its initial hypothesis—women and men did not differ in their hiring
decisions for female and male applicants (Davison & Burke, 2000). Moreover, women and
men have been found to react similarly to linguistic forms (Merkel et al., 2012). Hence, we
did not investigate effects of participants’ gender on the perceived lack of fit in the present
studies.
In earlier research by Braun and colleagues (Experiment 3, 2002) participants were
asked to name and suggest politicians as potential future leaders in order to capture mental
representations. The present study, however, is the first to investigate effects of linguistic
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 12
forms in job advertisements in personnel selection procedures for leadership positions. It is
also the first study to examine the impact of masculine forms with (m/f). The present study
broadens the scope of the existing literature in that we attempt to show potentially far-
reaching consequences of organizations’ language use in job advertisements for women’s
career opportunities in the context of leadership.
Our study employed a between-subjects design, in order to make applicant gender
less salient than it would be in within-subject designs (Davison and Burke, 2000): We
asked participants to evaluate only one applicant, who was either female or male. Such
paradigms are regarded as a reasonable and valid method and are common practice (see the
meta-analyses of Davison & Burke, 2000; Olian, Schwab, Haberfeld, 1988; Swim, Borgida,
Maruyama, & Myers, 1989). Meta-analyses in the context of gender discrimination in
hypothetical hiring situations have revealed that effects of gender discrimination can be
even larger in within-subjects than in between-subjects designs (Olian et al., 1988). The
meta-analysis by Davison and Burke (2000), which included far more studies than the one
by Olian and colleagues (1988), showed no differences between within- and between-
subjects designs.
Hiring-simulation paradigms per se have more ecological validity today than in
former times, as nowadays recruiting is often outsourced to so-called ‘Head Hunters’ or
employment agencies. They are given job titles and job descriptions and professionally
recruit profile-matching employees for these jobs. Moreover, evaluating only one applicant
also served to disguise the aim of the study and to limit the time needed for filling out the
questionnaire.
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 13
Method
Participants and Design
A sample of 363 students of business and economics from Austrian universities
(226 women, 132 men, 5 without gender information; mean age: 24.50; SD = 5.24)
completed the web-based questionnaire. We chose students of business and economics
because they are more likely than others to be involved in personnel selection in their future
careers. Students were recruited via email and were offered the opportunity to win one of
five 20 Euro-vouchers in a lottery. We removed data of 6 participants, because it was their
second participation in the study. Data of their first participation remained in the sample.
The study was based on a 2 (Status of Position: low vs. high) x 3 (Linguistic Form:
masculine form vs. masculine form with (m/f) vs. word pair) x 2 (Applicant Gender: female
vs. male) between-participants design.
Material and Manipulations
Job advertisements. We created German-language job advertisements based on
material used by Bosak and Sczesny (2008). These fictitious job advertisements were
standardized with respect to layout, company name (Haber Incorporated), and information
on the organization and job description. We balanced communal and agentic traits in the
description of job requirements to minimize chances of language-unrelated gender biases
(see Gaucher et al., 2011). Only job titles varied in the job advertisements: (a) with respect
to status of leadership position (low vs. high) and (b) with respect to linguistic form
(masculine form vs. masculine with (m/f) vs. word pair). We used the order feminine-
masculine in word pairs, since this is fairly common in German-speaking countries and is
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 14
recommended in German guidelines or regulations for gender-fair language (e.g., Land
Hessen, 2005; Land Oberösterreich, 2003).
As leadership positions we chose a ‘project leader’ for the position of lower status,
and a ‘chief executive officer’ (CEO) for the position of higher status relative to leadership
positions in general. The job title for the high-status position in the word pair form, for
example, was Geschäftsführerin/Geschäftsführer (‘CEO, fem./CEO, masc.’). All German
job titles used in the job advertisements and their English translations are presented in
Table 1. The respective job title appeared as heading of the job advertisement and was
repeated once in the job description. To ensure that the linguistic form and status
manipulation remained salient throughout the study, the respective job title appeared in the
header of each page of the questionnaire measuring the dependent variables.
Applications. We created applications which had allegedly been submitted via
online-application forms and included the applicants’ curriculum vitae (CV). We provided
information on name, address, birth date, education, job experience, and further education
as well foreign languages and management-relevant IT knowledge. In order to make
applicants appear sufficiently suitable and experienced for the respective job, the alleged
web applications for the low- and the high-status leadership position differed in applicant’s
age, leadership experience, further education and IT knowledge. Applicants for the high-
status leadership position were older, reported two more prior job positions, more further
education and greater IT knowledge. Pictures of applicants were not provided to prevent
effects of attractiveness (e.g., Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991; Heilman &
Stopeck, 1985). The program of the web-based questionnaire randomly assigned
participants to experimental conditions.
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 15
Manipulation checks. In order to check if the high-status leadership position was
indeed ascribed a higher status than the low-status position, participants were asked “Does
the position advertised in the job advertisement have more or less prestige and status
compared to other leadership positions?” Participants provided their answers on a 7-point
Likert scale (1 = much less prestige/status; 7 = much more prestige/status). At the end of
the questionnaire, participants were asked whether the applicant was female or male.
Measures. Participants rated the applicant’s competence and suitability for the
leadership position, indicated her or his hireability and the wages they found appropriate for
the applicant.
Competence. We asked participants “To what extent do you ascribe the following
traits to the applicant?” Participants were presented with five commonly used competence
traits (competent, efficient, confident, skillful and capable, Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2004 and
Cuddy et al., 2009, Cronbach α = .90) and indicated their answers on 7-point Likert scales
(1 = very little; 7 = very much). To back up the cover story (collection of data about the
applicant’s personality profile) and to distract attention from competence items, the
competence items were mixed with 10 filler traits which were related to person orientation
or warmth (e.g., helpful, friendly; Cuddy et al., 2009) or other traits (e.g., punctual,
curious).
Applicant’s aptitude. Participants evaluated the applicant’s aptitude with the
advertised position with four items: (1) “The person is very well qualified for the advertised
leadership position”, (2) “It would be difficult for the person to fulfill the job
requirements” (reverse coding), (3) “The person fits the profile of the advertised leadership
position”, and (4) “The advertised leadership position fits the person’s skills and abilities.”
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 16
We adopted these items from Bosak and Sczesny (2008). Participants indicated their
agreement with these statements on 7-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree; 7 =
strongly agree).
Hireability. We asked participants to indicate how likely they would hire the
applicant for the advertised position on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = very unlikely; 7 = very
likely).
Appropriate wage. Participants were asked what wage they considered appropriate
for the applicant relative to the average wages paid for the job (which represented the scale
midpoint). Participants gave their responses on an 11-point rating scale ranging from -50%
to +50%, in 10% increments (derived from Becker, Glick, Ilic, & Bohner, 2011).
In order to explore the structure underlying the six items (i.e., the four items
measuring applicant’s aptitude, the hireability item and the appropriate wage item), and to
uncover whether these items could be reduced to one or more powerful, coherent and
reliable subsets, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis (principal component
analysis). As the resulting factors could be correlated, we used oblique rotation (direct
oblimin) (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). This analysis revealed one factor only. This factor
had an eigenvalue of 4.01 and was labeled “suitability”. All item loadings ranged between
.59 and 89. This factor explained 66.79 % of variance.
Following this analysis, the six items measuring suitability were Z-standardized,
because they involved different answer formats, and were averaged to form a suitability
index (Cronbach's α = .90). Competence and suitability correlated significantly (r = .61, p ≤
.001).
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 17
As professional experience can influence evaluations and decisions in personnel
selection procedures (Krings, Sczesny, & Kluge, 2011), we measured the participants’
professional experience with the help of a yes/no-question and controlled for it in all
analyses.
Procedure
Upon entering the web-based questionnaire, participants were informed that the
study was about the effectiveness of web applications, as nowadays more and more
organizations collect CVs via an online form as a first step in personnel selection
procedures. They were asked to imagine that they were responsible for personnel selection.
They were shown one job advertisement and then the CV of either a female or a male
applicant. Subsequently they were asked to evaluate the applicant, to rate his or her
competence and aptitude for the position, to indicate his or her hireability and the
appropriate wage. In the framework of manipulation checks, participants were asked to
recall some details of the applicant’s curriculum vitae (e.g., age, foreign languages spoken)
in order to support the cover story. Finally, they were asked for demographic information as
well as information on their professional experience. It was impossible to return to earlier
pages of the web-based questionnaire. After completing the questionnaire participants were
debriefed and thanked for their participation.
Results
Throughout this article, p-values of .05 or less are considered significant, p-values
between .05 and .10 are considered marginal (Salovey, 2000). All contrasts are one-tailed.
Manipulation checks
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 18
Forty-four participants (12 %) did not remember the applicant’s gender correctly;
these participants were removed from the sample. Thus, the final sample consisted of 319
participants (199 women, 117 men, mean age: 24.49, SD = 5.22). As intended, the low-
status position was rated lower in status (M = 3.95) than the high-status position (M = 4.37),
t(317) = -2.94, p = .004.
The Impact of Linguistic Forms
Our sample of business students varied in professional experience; professional
experience turned out to correlate positively with ascribed competence (r = .18, p ≤ .001)
and suitability (r = .23, p ≤ .001). Therefore we controlled for professional experience and
conducted analyses of covariance with competence and suitability as dependent variables.
Before testing our hypothesis we subjected competence and suitability to a 2 (Status
of Position: low vs. high) x 3 (Linguistic Form: masculine form vs. masculine form with
(m/f) vs. word pair) x 2 (Applicant Gender: female vs. male) multivariate analysis of
covariance (MANCOVA). This analysis showed that the covariate professional experience
was associated with the two dependent variables competence and suitability, F (2, 305) =
9.73, p ≤ .001, η2p = .06. The results revealed a multivariate significant main effect of
Status, F (2, 305) = 13.92, p ≤ .001, η2
p = .08, and a marginal two-way interaction of Status
x Applicant Gender, F (2, 305) = 2.92, p = .056, η2
p = .02.
Competence. The ANCOVA for competence revealed that the covariate
professional experience correlated with competence ratings, F (1, 306) = 10.04, p = .002,
η2p = .03. Furthermore, a main effect of status, F (1, 306) = 12.56, p ≤ .001, η2p = .04,
indicated that applicants for the low-status position were perceived as less competent (M =
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 19
4.77) than applicants for the high-status position (M = 5.20). No other effect reached
significance (all ps > .148). All means and standard deviations are presented in Table 2. In
addition, all means and standard deviations are presented in Appendix A, differentiated for
participant gender.
Suitability. The ANCOVA for suitability showed that the covariate professional
experience was associated with suitability, F (1, 306) = 19.03, p ≤ .001, η2p = .06. A
significant main effect was found for status of position, F (1, 306) = 27.68, p ≤ .001, η2p =
.08. Applicants for the low-status position were perceived as less suitable (M = -.25) than
applicants for the high-status position (M = .22). The interaction status of position by
applicant gender was marginally significant, F (1, 306) = 3.41, p = .066, η2p = .01. Most
importantly, the hypothesized three-way interaction status of position by linguistic form by
applicant gender, F (2, 306) = 3.77, p = .024, η2p = .02, reached significance. In order to
decompose this interaction, we will present analyses for each position separately.
The ANCOVA for the low-status position revealed no significant effects, except for
the covariate professional experience, F (1, 145) = 11.15, p ≤ .001, η2 p = .07. This indicates
that female and male applicants for the lower-status position of project leader were
perceived as similarly suitable.
The ANCOVA for the high-status position revealed that the covariate professional
experience was associated with suitability, F (1, 160) = 7.87, p = .006, η2 p = .05. A
significant main effect for applicant gender, F (1, 160) = 4.51, p = .035, η2 p = .03, indicated
that female applicants were perceived as less suitable (M = .05) than male applicants (M =
.35). In addition, the two-way interaction linguistic form by applicant gender was marginal,
F (2, 160) = 2.47, p = .087, η2 p = .03.
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 20
In order to test our hypothesis concerning differences between female and male
applicants for the high-status position in the three linguistic conditions, we calculated one-
tailed a priori contrasts. In the case of two independent variables and their combined effect
on one dependent variable, planned contrasts of this kind are considered more appropriate
for testing a priori hypotheses than F- tests of a univariate ANOVA (Hager, 2000; 2002),
as they have more power to test predicted mean differences (Hager, 2002). Professional
experience was included as a covariate in all analyses, but since calculations of contrasts
cannot include covariates, we used residuals of suitability. These residuals were calculated
by partializing professional experience from suitability ratings (using the option of saving
residuals in regression analyses). Additionally, we calculated rcontrast as recommended effect
size for the present contrasts (Sedlmeier & Renkewitz, 2013; Rosenthal, Rosnow, & Rubin,
2000). Results of the contrasts revealed the following: Female applicants were perceived as
significantly less suitable for the high-status position than male applicants when the
masculine form was used (p = .002, rcontrast = .22); this difference was marginal for the
masculine form with (m/f) (p = .069, rcontrast = .12). In the word pair condition female and
male applicants were rated as similarly suitable (p = .489, rcontrast = .02).i All means and
standard deviations are given in Table 2. Means are also displayed in Figure 1. Appendix B
presents all means and standard deviations differentiated for participant gender.
Discussion
The present study was designed to gain insights into the effects of linguistic forms
in job advertisements on personnel selection procedures. Employing a hiring-simulation
paradigm, we investigated whether the use of masculine forms in advertisements for a
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 21
leadership position was associated with a perceived lack of fit for women and whether word
pairs could reduce this lack of fit. The results confirmed our hypothesis: Linguistic forms
affected suitability ratings for the high-status leadership position, but not for the low-status
position. More specifically, female applicants were perceived as fitting the high-status
position less well than male applicants when it was advertised in the masculine form. This
effect was marginal for the masculine with (m/f). When a word pair was used, however,
female applicants were perceived as fitting the position similarly well as their male
counterparts. Thus, women’s lack of fit with top management disappeared when explicit
and symmetrical reference was made to a (potential) female and a male leader with a word
pair. This finding confirms earlier results which showed that female professionals were
suggested for a political leadership position more frequently (Braun et al., 2005) or were
ascribed more success (Vervecken et al., 2013) when word pairs were used to designate the
positions in comparison to masculine forms. The finding that linguistic forms impacted
suitability ratings only for the high-status, but not for the low-status position is in line with
other research findings which document that top management is perceived as more
‘masculine’ and that women’s perceived lack of fit is more pronounced for positions of
higher than lower levels (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Eagly & Carli, 2007; Heilman & Parks-
Stamm, 2007; Koenig et al., 2011).
According to the lack of fit model (Heilman, 1983, 2012), a linguistic form may
function as a signal of job requirements when women’s fit with a leadership position is
assessed by comparing their (stereotypical) attributes and job requirements. In our study,
women’s perceived fit with top management apparently increased when the position was
advertised with a word pair in a gender-balanced or symmetrical way, compared to the
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 22
masculine form (whether combined with (m/f) or not). This is in line with the statement that
the extent of the perceived lack of fit between a woman’s attributes and the nature of the
respective position “regulates the amount of bias exhibited” (Heilman, 2012, p. 117).
Taking into account that occupations are perceived as more male-typed when presented
with masculine forms and more gender-balanced when word pairs are used (Braun, et al.,
2005; Merkel et al., 2012) and considering that women’s perceived lack of fit with a
position is more pronounced the more male-typed the position is deemed to be (Bem &
Bem, 1973; Gaucher et al., 2011; Heilman, 2012), we conclude that word pairs
counteracted the “maleness” of the high-status position. The present research provides
further evidence for the lack of fit model by showing that the proportional representation of
women and men in a certain job––even a linguistic representation in a job advertisement––
can be related to “bias-curtailing effects” (Heilman, 2012, p. 121).
As expected, linguistic forms did not affect competence ratings, which confirms
findings of recent research (Merkel et al., 2012). Irrespective of linguistic condition,
applicants for the low-status position were perceived as less competent and were less likely
to be employed than applicants for the high-status position. This is not surprising and can
be explained as follows: In order to make applicants appear suitable for the respective
positions, applicants for the low-status position (project leader) were presented as
possessing less work experience and less IT knowledge than applicants for the high-status
position (CEO).
The present research broadens the scope of past findings on the effects of gender-
fair language. Earlier research has largely demonstrated that different linguistic forms
influence mental representations and social perception (see Stahlberg, et al., 2007 for an
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 23
overview). But masculine forms—compared to gender-fair language—also have tangible
implications in the work context, such as excluding women from particularly male-
dominated fields (Bem & Bem, 1973; Merkel, et al., 2012; Stout & Dasgupta, 2011). The
present results provide first empirical evidence that gender-fair forms in job advertisements
can reduce the perception of women’s lack of fit with leadership positions and may thus
have a positive effect on the evaluation of female applicants in personnel selection
procedures.
Furthermore, this is the first study which experimentally investigated ramifications
of the masculine form combined with (m/f). This variant was developed specifically for job
advertisements and is recommended by the European Parliament (2008) as a gender-fair
form replacing the masculine only. In contrast to this view, our results show that this form
is associated with a perceived lack of fit for women with top management, just like the
masculine form is. Hence, just adding the letter ‘f’ for ‘female’ (in German: w for weiblich)
to mark the inclusion of women does not suffice to level ascriptions of fit for female and
male applicants for the high-status position. Moreover, it is not clear whether the order of
‘m’ first and ‘f’ second in (m/f) plays a role. We do not assume that changing the
recommended order from (m/f) to (f/m) (e.g., European Parliament, 2008) would make a
big difference, as the masculine job title would still dominate in the caption of the job
advertisement (Geschäftsführer (m/f) or Geschäftsführer (f/m)), but this would have to be
tested empirically. According to our findings, the outcome of the selection procedure for
the high-status position was more gender-fair only when the entire feminine job title
appeared as part of a feminine-masculine word pair in the advertisement. This seems to
suggest that gender equality and symmetry are achieved to the extent that the linguistic
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 24
forms used are equal and symmetrical.
Limitations and Future Directions
One limitation of our study is that the findings are based on a hiring-simulation
paradigm with a between-subjects design, whereas the world is a ‘within-subjects world’
(Heilman & Chen, 2005, pp. 440). In particular, applicants are usually compared with other
applicants in real-life personnel selection procedures. Evaluating one applicant only
therefore does not reflect reality. Nevertheless, such paradigms are regarded as a reasonable
and valid method and are commonly used (see Davison & Burke, 2000). We also argue that
hiring-simulation paradigms have more ecological validity today than in former times, as
was argued above.
As for the question of sampling, a meta-analysis comparing how managers and
recruiters vs. university students evaluated job applicants revealed that the magnitude of
bias did not differ between these two groups (Olian et al., 1988). However, a more
ecologically valid sample, for instance, human resources managers, would be desirable to
confirm that experts’ evaluations as well are affected by linguistic forms.
Another limitation of our study is that the manipulation of applicant gender
apparently was not salient enough, given that 12% of the participants failed to recall it
correctly. Removing these participants lowered the power of our study: Post-hoc power
analysis with G*Power (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang & Buchner, 2007) revealed that—given our
final sample size of 319 participants, design and effect size of the hypothesized three-way
interaction—our analysis had a power of 62% and thus did not reach the critical
conventional power of 80% (Cohen, 1992). Reduced power in studies may be associated
with a higher likelihood of false negative effects, a higher probability that an effect does not
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 25
reach statistical significance and effect inflation (i.e., an overestimation of the respective
effect size; Button, Ioannidis, Mokrysz, Nosek, Flint, Robinson, & Munafo, 2013). But
despite the reduced power of the present study, we found the hypothesized impact of
linguistic forms on suitability ratings.
To further extend knowledge on the impact of different linguistic forms used in job
advertisements, future studies should take a closer look at the use of masculine forms with
the addition of (m/f). This form has received very little attention in research, although it is
frequent in job advertisements. Also, more research is needed to determine which other
alternative forms can reduce gender biases to which degree, for instance, gender-neutral
expressions such as Geschäftsführung, ‘corporate management’, or the capital I- form
which combines the masculine and the feminine in one word by capitalizing the first letter
of the feminine ending (e.g., GeschäftsführerInnen, Braun et al., 2005). Although the law
for equal treatment in Austria (Gleichbehandlungsgesetz, 2004), for instance, prohibits the
use of feminine-only forms, it would be of theoretical and practical interest to test the
effects of exclusively feminine forms in advertisements. Would readers interpret this form
as a signal that only women are wanted and perceive female applicants as more fitting than
male applicants?
A further question is whether and how effects of linguistic forms interact with the
‘think crisis – think female’ stereotype. This phenomenon indicates that in times of crisis
women are preferred over men for leadership positions (Ellemers, Rink, Derks & Ryan,
2012; Gartzia, Ryan, Balluerka, & Aritzeta, 2012; Ryan, Haslam, Hersby, & Bongiorno,
2011). Considering that executives of an organization are aware of whether their
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 26
organization is in a crisis or not when they are making a hiring decision, this question is an
important one.
Practical Implications
The results reported here are highly relevant to organizational language use and to
women’s career perspectives, because women (and organizations) are still faced with the
glass ceiling (Hymowitz & Schellhart, 1986, Kaufmann, Isaksen, & Lauer, 1996) or with
the labyrinth (Eagly & Carli, 2007), which women have to overcome to reach higher
management levels. Our results suggest that there is a simple and efficient way for
organizations to reduce women’s disadvantages in the leadership context: making women
linguistically visible. Laws, policies and guidelines in European countries demand the use
of gender-fair language in job advertisements as a measure of gender equality anyway (e.g.,
Chancellerie fédérale, 2000; Europäisches Parlament, 2009; UNESCO, 1999). Using
gender-fair language in job advertisements is a measure which is easily applicable and does
not create extra expenses for the organizations concerned.
Conclusions
The present research has shown that linguistic forms which refer to women and men
in an explicit and symmetric manner (i.e., word pairs) have the potential of reducing the
perception of women’s lack of fit with high-status leadership positions. In a broader
perspective, the present study underlines the fact that linguistic forms can affirm and
reinforce inequalities by impacting “decision making in such ways that serve to preserve
group inequality and the prevailing status quo” (Gaucher et al., 2011, p. 122). Our research
provides first empirical evidence that a gender-fair wording of job advertisements may
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 27
counteract the ascribed lack of fit for women with leadership positions.
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 28
References
Becker, J., Glick, P., Ilic, M., & Bohner, G. (2011). Damned if she does, damned if she
doesn't: Consequences of accepting versus confronting patronizing help for the
female target and male actor. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 761–773.
doi:10.1002/ejsp.823
Bem, S., & Bem, D. (1973). Does sex-biased job advertising "aid and abet" sex
discrimination? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3(1), 6–18.
doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1973.tb01290.x
Biernat, M., & Fuegen, K. (2001). Shifting standards and the evaluation of competence:
Complexity in gender-based judgment and decision making. Journal of Social
Issues, 57(4), 707–724. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.2.178
Bosak, J., & Sczesny, S. (2008). Am I the right candidate? Self-ascribed fit of women and
men to a leadership position. Sex Roles, 58(9), 682–688. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-
9380-4
Braun, F., Sczesny, S., & Stahlberg, D. (2002). Das generische Maskulinum und die
Alternativen: Empirische Studien zur Wirkung generischer Personenbezeichnungen
im Deutschen. Germanistische Linguistik, 167/168, 77–87.
Braun, F., Sczesny, S., & Stahlberg, D. (2005). Cognitive effects of masculine generics in
German: An overview of empirical findings. Communications, 30, 1–21.
doi:10.1515/comm.2005.30.1.1
Bundesministerium für Frauen und Öffentlichen Dienst (2009). Geschlechtergerechte
Stellenausschreibungen. Unabhängiger Bericht der Gleichbehandlungsanwaltschaft
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 29
iS §3 Abs 5 GBK/GAW-Gesetz. Wien. Retrieved from
http://www.bundesregierung.at/DocView.axd?CobId=34384
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J. &
Munafò. M. R. (2013). Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the
reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14, 1-13.
doi:10.1038/nrn3475
Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic images of occupations
correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 25(4), 413–423. doi:10.1177/0146167299025004002
Chancellerie fédérale (2000). Guide de formulation non sexiste. Retrieved from
http://www.bk.admin.ch/dokumentation/sprachen/04908/05037/index.html?lang=fr
Chatard, A.,Guimont, S., & Martinot, D. (2005). Impact de la féminisation lexicale des
professions sur l'auto-efficacité des élèves: Une remise en cause de l'universalisme
masculin? L'année psychologique, 2, 249–272. doi:10.3406/psy.2005.29694
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
Crawford, M., & English, L. (1984). Generic versus specific inclusion of women in
language: Effects on recall. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 13(5), 373–381.
doi: 10.1007/BF01068152
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2004). When professionals become mothers,
warmth doesn't cut the ice. Journal of Social Issues, 60(4), 701–718.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., Kwan, V. S. Y., Glick, P., Demoulin, S., Leyens, J.-P., …
Ziegler, R. (2009). Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 30
similarities and some differences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 1–33.
doi:10.1348/014466608X314935
Davison, H. K., & Burke, M. J. (2000). Sex discrimination in simulated employment
contexts: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 225–
248. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1999.1711
Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful
is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on physical attractiveness
stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 109–128. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.110.1.109
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harvard
Business Review, 62–71.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female
leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. doi:10.1037//0033-
295X.109.3.573
Ellemers, N., Rink, F., Derks, B., & Ryan, M. (2012). Women in high places: When and
why promoting women into top positions can harm them individually or as a group
(and how to prevent this). Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 163–187.
doi:10.1016/j.riob.2012.10.003
Europäisches Parlament (2009). Geschlechtergerechter Sprachgebrauch im Europäischen
Parlament. Retrieved from
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/publications/2009/0001/P6_PUB(2009)000
1_DE.pdf
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 31
European Commission (2011). Report on progress on equality between women and men in
2010. The gender balance in business leadership. Luxembourg, Publications Office
of the European Union. doi:10.2767/99441
European Parliament (2008). El lenguaje no sexista en el Paramento Europeo.Retrieved
from
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/publications/2009/0001/P6_PUB%282009
%290001_ES.pdf
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible
statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical
sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P, & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype
content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and
competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902.
Gabriel, U., Gygax, P., Sarrasin, O., Garnham, A., & Oakhill, J. (2008). Au pairs are rarely
male: Norms on the gender perception of role names across English, French, and
German. Behavior Research Methods, 40(1), 206–212. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.1.206
Gartzia, L., Ryan, M. K., Balluerka, N., & Aritzeta, A. (2012). Think crisis–think female:
Further evidence. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21(4),
603–628. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2011.591572
Gastil, J. (1990). Generic Pronouns and Sexist Language: The oxymoronic character of
masculine generics. Sex Roles, 23(11/12), 629–643. doi: 10.1007/BF00289252
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 32
Gaucher, D., Friesen, J., & Kay, A. C. (2011). Evidence that gendered wording in job
advertisements exists and sustains gender inequality. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 101(1), 109–128. doi:10.1037/a0022530
Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (2004). Retrieved from
http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/BgblAuth/BGBLA_2004_I_66/BGBLA_2004
_I_66.pdf
Glick, P., Zion, C., & Nelson, C. (1988). What mediates sex discrimination in hiring
decisions? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(2), 178–186.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.2.178
Hager, W. (2000). About some misconceptions and the discontent with statistical tests in
psychology. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 5(1), 1–31.
Hager, W. (2002). The examination of psychological hypotheses by planned contrasts
referring to two-factor interactions in fixed-effects ANOVA. Methods of
Psychological Research Online,7(3), 49–77.
Hamilton, M. C. (1988). Using masculine generics: Does generic he increase male bias in
the user's imagery? Sex Roles, 19(11/12), 785–799. doi:10.1007/BF00288993
Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 5, 269–298.
Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003
Heilman, M. E., & Chen, J. J. (2005). Same behavior, different consequences: Reactions to
men's and women's altruistic citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90(3), 431–441. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.431
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 33
Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2008). Motherhood: A potential source of bias in
employment decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 189–198.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.189
Heilman, M. E., & Parks-Stamm, E. J. (2007). Gender stereotypes in the workplace:
Obstacles to women's career progress. Advances in Group Processes, 24, 47–77.
doi:10.1016/S0882-6145(07)24003-2
Heilman, M. E., & Stopeck, M. H. (1985). Attractiveness and corporate success: Different
causal attributions for males and females. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(2),
379–388. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.70.2.379
Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success:
Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89(3), 416–427. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.416
Heise, E. (2000). Sind Frauen mitgemeint? Eine empirische Untersuchung zum Verständnis
des generischen Maskulinums und seiner Alternativen. Sprache und Kognition -
Zeitschrift für Sprach- & Kognitionspsychologie und ihre Grenzgebiete, 19(1/2), 3–
13. doi:10.1024//0253-4533.19.12.3
Hellinger, M. (2004). Vorschläge zur sprachlichen Gleichbehandlung von Frauen und
Männern. In K. M. Eichhoff-Cyrus (Ed.), Adam, Eva und die Sprache (pp. 275–
291). Mannheim: Duden Verlag.
Hymowitz, C., & Schellhardt, T. (1986). The glass ceiling: Why women can't seem to break
the invisible barrier that blocks them from top jobs. The Wall Street Journal, Special
Report, March 24, 1–28.
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 34
Irmen, L., & Rossberg, N. (2004). Gender markedness of language: The impact of
grammatical and nonlinguistic information on the mental representation of person
information. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23(3), 272–307.
doi:10.1177/0261927X04266810
Kaufmann, G., Isaksen, S. G., & Lauer, K. (1996). Testing the “glass ceiling” effect on
gender differences in upper level management: The case of innovator orientation.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 29–41.
doi:10.1080/13594329608414837
Krings, F., Sczesny, S., & Kluge, A. (2011). Stereotypical inferences as mediators of age
discrimination: The role of competence and warmth. British Journal of
Management, 22, 187–201. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00721.x
Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes
masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin,
137(4). doi:10.1037/a0023557
Land Hessen (2005). Gemeinsame Geschäftsordnung der Ministerien des Landes Hessen.
Retrieved from http://starweb.hessen.de/cache/hessen/ggo.pdf
Land Oberösterreich (2003). Gender Mainstreaming im Land Oberösterreich. Leitlinien für
einen geschlechtergerechten Sprachgebrauch. Retrieved from
http://www.frauenreferat-ooe.at/xbcr/SID-C2D7F16C-
72F641A0/praes_leitlinien_Gender.pdf
Lujansky-Lammer, E. (2006). Stellenausschreibungen – ein Spiegelbild der Gesellschaft.
Diploma Thesis: Karl-Franzens-University of Graz.
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 35
Merkel, E. F., Horvath, L. K., Maass, A., & Sczesny, S. (2012, March). Gender-fair
language as a double-edged sword: Women gaining professional visibility at the
cost of status loss? Paper presented at the 55th Conference for Experimental
Psychologists, Vienna (A).
Mucchi-Faina, A. (2005). Visible or influential? Language reforms and gender (in)equality.
Social Science Information, 44, 189–215. doi:10.1177/0539018405050466
Ng, S. H. (1990). Androcentric coding of man and his in memory by language users.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 455–464. doi:10.1016/0022-
1031(90)90069-X
Olian, J. D., Schwab, D. P., & Haberfeld, Y. (1988). The impact of applicant gender
compared to qualifications on hiring recommendations: A meta-analysis of
experimental studies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
41(2), 180–195.doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(88)90025-8
Pauwels, A. (1998). Feminist language planning: Has it been worthwhile. Linguistik online,
1, 1–12.
Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R. L., & Rubin, D. B. (2000). Contrasts and effect sizes in
behavioral research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic
women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle-managers.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004–1010. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.77.5.1004
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 36
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward
agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743–762. doi:10.1111/0022-
4537.00239
Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., Hersby, M. D., & Bongiorno, R. (2011). Think crisis–think
female: The glass cliff and contextual variation in the think manager–think male
stereotype. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 470–484. doi:10.1037/a0022133
Salovey, P. (2000). Results that get results. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Guide to publishing in
Psychology journals (pp.121-132). New York: Camebridge University Press.
Schein, V. E. (1973). The relation between sex role stereotypes and requisite management
characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 95–100.
Schein, V. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in
management. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 675–688. doi:10.1111/0022-
4537.00235
Sedlmeier, P., & Renkewitz, F. (2013). Forschungsmethoden und Statistik für Psychologen
und Sozialwissenschaftler. München: Pearson Studium.
Stahlberg, D., Braun, F., Irmen, L., & Sczesny, S. (2007). Representation of the sexes in
language. In K. Fiedler (Ed.), Social Communication (pp. 163–187). New York:
Psychology Press.
Stanley, T. D., & Jarrell, S. B. (1998). Gender wage discrimination bias? A meta-regression
analysis. Journal of Human Ressources, 33, 947–973.doi: 10.2307/146404
Stout, J. G., & Dasgupta, N. (2011). When he doesn't mean you: Gender-exclusive
language as ostracism. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 37(6), 757–
769. doi:10.1177/0146167211406434
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 37
Swim, J., Borgida, E., Maruyama, G., & Myers, D. G. (1989). Joan McKay versus John
McKay: Do gender stereotypes bias evaluations? Psychological Bulletin, 105(3),
409–429.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New
York: Harper-Collins.
UNESCO (1999). Guidelines for gender-neutral language. Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001149/114950mo.pdf
Vervecken, D., & Hannover, B., & Wolter, I. (2013). Changing (s)expectations: How
gender fair job descriptions impact children’s perceptions and interest regarding
traditionally male occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 208-220.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2013.01.008
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 38
Table 1
German Job Titles for Low- and High-Status Positions
Status of
Position
Linguistic Form
Masculine Form
Masculine Form with (m/f)
Word pair
Low Status
Projektleiter
‘project leader, masc.’
Projektleiter (m/w)
‘project leader, masc., (m/f)’
Projektleiterin/Projektleiter
‘project leader, fem./project leader,
masc.’
High Status
Geschäftsführer
‘CEO, masc.’
Geschäftsführer(m/w)
‘CEO, masc., (m/f)’
Geschäftsführerin/Geschäftsführer
‘CEO, fem./CEO, masc.’
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 39
Table 2
Means (Standard Deviations) for Competence and Suitability by Status of Position,
Linguistic Form and Applicant Gender.
Status of
Position
Linguistic Form
Applicant Gender
Female
Male
M
SD
M
SD
Competence
Low Status
Masculine Form
4.69
1.27
4.41
1.10
Masculine Form with (m/f)
4.69
1.16
4.84
.78
Word Pair
4.77
.87
5.31
1.24
High Status
Masculine Form
5.01
.85
5.29
1.23
Masculine Form with (m/f)
5.23
.97
5.19
.95
Word Pair
5.14
.88
5.29
.84
Suitability
Low Status
Masculine Form
-.14
.79
-.48
.78
Masculine Form with (m/f)
-.47
.66
-.25
.79
Word Pair
-.09
.72
-.13
1.13
High Status
Masculine Form
-0.13
.88
0.49
.74
Masculine Form with (m/f)
0.07
.78
0.32
.72
Word Pair
0.22
.65
0.21
.74
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 40
Figure 1: Suitability (z-standardized averaged suitability for position, hireability and
appropriate wage) for Female and Male Applicants for a High-Status Position. Higher
numbers reflect higher manifestations of the variable.
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 41
Appendix A
Means (Standard Deviations) for Competence by Status of Position, Linguistic Form, and
Applicant Gender, differentiated for Participant Gender.
Status
Linguistic Form
Participant
Gender
Applicant Gender
Female
Male
M
SD
M
SD
Low Status
Masculine Form
Women
5.05
1.11
4.89
1.05
Men
4.05
1.40
3.91
1.00
Masculine Form (m/f)
Women
4.65
1.38
5.17
.59
Men
4.77
.23
4.29
.79
Word Pair
Women
4.71
.99
5.65
.90
Men
4.86
.65
4.45
1.63
High Status
Masculine Form
Women
5.22
.54
5.09
1.44
Men
4.74
1.12
5.60
.73
Masculine Form (m/f)
Women
5.37
1.12
5.09
.91
Men
4.97
1.22
5.27
1.02
Word Pair
Women
5.16
.99
5.24
.92
Men
5.07
.52
5.46
.61
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 42
Appendix B
Means (Standard Deviations) for Suitability by Status of Position, Linguistic Form, and
Applicant Gender, differentiated for Participant Gender.
Status
Linguistic Form
Participant
Gender
Applicant Gender
Female
Male
M
SD
M
SD
Low Status
Masculine Form
Women
.03
.78
-.17
.65
Men
-.44
.79
-.79
.83
Masculine Form (m/f)
Women
-.55
.74
-.12
.69
Men
-.25
.36
-.48
.96
Word Pair
Women
-.10
.81
-.06
1.03
Men
-.01
.54
-.31
1.44
High Status
Masculine Form
Women
.15
.43
.41
.70
Men
-.50
1.18
.63
.80
Masculine Form (m/f)
Women
.13
.88
.17
.82
Men
-.04
.54
.47
.63
Word Pair
Women
.08
.67
.27
.71
Men
.57
.49
.05
.86
Running head: LINGUISTIC FORMS AND LEADERSHIP 43
i Analyses with all 363 participants––including those participants who failed the manipulation check for
applicant gender–– overall yielded the same results.