688085
JCCXXX10.1177/0022022116688085Journal of Cross-Cultural PsychologyHodel et al.
research-article2017
Article
Gender-Fair Language in Job
Advertisements: A Cross-Linguistic
and Cross-Cultural Analysis
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
1–18
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022116688085
DOI: 10.1177/0022022116688085
journals.sagepub.com/home/jccp
Lea Hodel1, Magdalena Formanowicz1, Sabine Sczesny1,
Jana Valdrová2, and Lisa von Stockhausen3
Abstract
The present study investigates whether and how the use of gender-fair language is related to
linguistic, cultural, and socioeconomic differences between countries with grammatical gender
languages. To answer this question, we analyzed job titles in online job advertisements from
four European countries differing in achieved gender equality and egalitarian versus hierarchical
cultural values (Switzerland, Austria, Poland, and Czech Republic). Results show that gender-fair
job titles were more frequent in more egalitarian countries with higher levels of socioeconomic
gender equality (Switzerland, Austria) than in countries with a higher acceptance of hierarchies
and inequalities (Poland, Czech Republic). In the latter countries, gender-specific (masculine or
feminine) job titles predominated. Moreover, gender-fair job titles were more prevalent in a
female-dominated branch (health care) and a gender-balanced economic branch (food services)
than in a male-dominated branch (constructional steel and metal work). Thus, our findings
suggest that the language use in job advertisements indeed corresponds with linguistic, cultural,
and socioeconomic aspects and may contribute to the transmission of gender (in)equalities and
gender stereotypes.
Keywords
gender equality, cross-cultural comparison, gender-fair language, job advertisements, job titles
Gender stereotypes are based on the traditional division of labor (Bosak, Sczesny, & Eagly, 2012;
Eagly, 1987): Women tend to work in occupations that require caring and cooperation and thus
are perceived as more communal (e.g., warm, helpful), whereas men tend to work in jobs requiring decision making or strength and are perceived as more agentic (e.g., ambitious, independent).
Furthermore, typically male occupations are often associated with greater power and higher
social status than typically female occupations (Ridgeway & Correll, 2004). Although gender
hierarchies and gender stereotyping have decreased over the last decades, men continue to have
more power than women do and gender stereotypes persist, even if they take subtle forms and
manifestations (Ridgeway & Correll, 2004). Language can be considered one of the subtle means
1University
of Bern, Switzerland
of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Czech Republic
3University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany
2University
Corresponding Author:
Sabine Sczesny, Department of Psychology, University of Bern, Fabrikstrasse 8, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.
Email:
[email protected]
2
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
of maintaining traditional gender arrangements, as language is an important vehicle for the transmission and maintenance of stereotypes (Maass & Arcuri, 1996). How situations are perceived
and interpreted is influenced not only by what we say, but also by how we say it, so that language
contributes to the construction of reality (Semin, 2000).
Earlier research has identified numerous gender asymmetries in language, which both reflect and
support the traditional gender hierarchy (Hellinger & Bußmann, 2001a, 2002, 2003). But exactly
how is actual language use related to linguistic, cultural, and socioeconomic aspects of gender hierarchies and gender stereotypes? The present research aims to determine how gender-fair language—
a symmetric treatment of women and men in language—corresponds to egalitarian cultural values
(i.e., the rejection of unequal power distribution in organizations and countries; Hofstede, Hofstede,
& Minkov, 2010) and to achieved gender equality (e.g., Gender Gap Index [GGI]; Hausmann, Tyson,
& Zahidi, 2012) in a country. We examined these questions by analyzing job advertisments from four
European countries: Czech Republic and Poland, two Eastern European countries with Slavic languages and nonegalitarian values, and Austria and Switzerland, two egalitarian Western European
countries where German is spoken. In addition, we investigated to what extent the occurrence of
gender-fair language was associated with the gender-typicality of economic branches as indicated by
proportions of male and female employees (Bundesamt für Statistik, 2012; Eurostat, 2012).
Gender Asymmetries in Language Use and Language Structure
In many languages, there are asymmetries in the linguistic forms referring to women and men.
The contributions in Hellinger and Bußmann (2001a, 2002, 2003) analyze gender in 30 languages from diverse language families (e.g., Arabic, Chinese, English, Finnish, Hindi, Turkish,
Swahili). They show that masculine-male forms usually designate not only men but also groups
of women and men, or referents whose gender is unknown or unspecified (see also Stahlberg,
Braun, Irmen, & Sczesny, 2007). This usage is known as masculine generics. In contrast, feminine-female forms are almost never used in a generic sense but refer to women only (Hellinger
& Bußmann, 2001b). In English, for example, the personal pronoun he is often used when gender
is irrelevant (e.g., the user . . . he). In German, masculine role nouns serve as labels for mixed
groups consisting of women and men (e.g., einige Lehrermasc.pl, “several teachers,” for a group of
male and female teachers). Past research has shown that masculine generics evoke a male bias in
cognitive representations (Stahlberg et al., 2007) so that readers or listeners, in line with the
grammatical form, mostly think of male exemplars. This effect has been observed in several
languages, such as English (e.g., Crawford & English, 1984; Gabriel, Gygax, Sarrasin, Garnham,
& Oakhill, 2008; Gastil, 1990; Hamilton, 1988; Ng, 1990), French (e.g., Chatard, Guimont, &
Martinot, 2005; Gabriel et al., 2008), German (e.g., Braun, Sczesny, & Stahlberg, 2005; Gabriel
et al., 2008; Heise, 2000; Irmen, 2007), and Polish (e.g., Bojarska, 2011).
Although this type of asymmetry exists in many languages, it is more visible in some languages than in others. In general, languages can be divided into three categories: grammatical
gender languages, natural gender languages, and genderless languages (for an overview, see
Stahlberg et al., 2007). In grammatical gender languages such as Czech, German, Italian, or
Polish, every personal noun has a grammatical gender, which usually corresponds to the gender
of a human referent. In natural gender languages such as English or Danish, most personal nouns
are gender-neutral and referential gender is mainly expressed in personal pronouns (he or she). In
genderless languages such as Finnish or Turkish, referential gender is marked neither on personal nouns nor on pronouns. Here, gender is expressed lexically (e.g., through attributes such as
“male/female [teacher]” or lexical gender words such as “woman” or “father”). Therefore, gender—both referential gender and the asymmetry inherent in masculine generics—is much more
visible in grammatical gender languages than in natural gender languages or genderless languages (Hellinger & Bußmann, 2001b).
Hodel et al.
3
Gender-Fair and Gender-Biased Language Use
Gender-biased language has been found to have detrimental effects for women, for example,
in decision making during the hiring process: Early work by Bem and Bem (1973) showed
that explicit gender references in job advertisements discouraged female U.S. university students from applying for typically male positions. Recent studies obtained similar results with
more subtle gender references: An agentic compared with communal wording of job advertisements led to a lower level of anticipated belongingness and to a lower level of job appeal
in female Canadian psychology students (Gaucher, Friesen, & Kay, 2011). Job advertisements
in the masculine (he instead of he and she) decreased female U.S. students’ identification with
the job and their motivation to pursue the respective career (Stout & Dasgupta, 2011). Belgian
and German children associated occupations less with female jobholders when the jobs were
described in the masculine rather than a gender-fair form (e.g., Dutch automonteerdersmasc.,
“car mechanics”; German Sportlermasc., “athletes” versus Dutch automonteerster en automonteerdersfem. + masc., “car mechanics”; German Sportlerinnen und Sportlerfem. + masc., “athletes”).
Moreover, girls perceived women as less successful and were less interested in a typically
male occupation when it was described in the masculine compared with a gender-fair form
(Vervecken, Hannover, & Wolter, 2013). In another study, women were perceived as less suitable for a high-status leadership position than men when the job was advertised with a masculine job title, whereas no such difference arose when a gender-fair job title was used
(Horvath & Sczesny, 2016).
In line with these findings, use of gender-fair language has been promoted, especially for
official and administrative texts, to represent women and men equally and to establish equal
chances. Various guidelines exist which explain and suggest gender-fair expressions. Gender-fair
language includes the avoidance of gender-specific (either masculine or feminine) forms in statements that refer to both genders as well as the avoidance of words and phrases with stereotypical
connotations (Schweizerische Bundeskanzlei, 1996/2009; United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 1999). But whether and to what extent language regulations have been introduced differs widely between countries and speech communities. The first
guidelines for gender-fair German, for example, were issued in the 1980s (e.g., Guentherodt,
Hellinger, Pusch, & Trömel-Plötz, 1980); since then, many more guidelines and recommendations, especially for public institutions, have followed (Hellinger & Bierbach, 1993; Kargl,
Wetschanow, Wodak, & Perle, 1997; Schweizerische Bundeskanzlei, 1996/2009). Czech guidelines, however, were only published in 2001 (Valdrová, 2001; Valdrová, Knotková-Čapková, &
Paclíková, 2010, Valdrová, 2013), and to our knowledge, there are no guidelines at all for Polish.
In general, guidelines offer only recommendations and are not legally binding. In Austria, however, the equal treatment act stipulates that job advertisements be phrased in a gender-fair way
(Bundesministerium für Frauen und Öffentlichen Dienst, 2009; GIBG, 2004) and companies can
be fined if they do not comply.
Thus, languages can be used in ways that promote or impede gender equality (Sczesny,
Formanowicz, & Moser, 2016). But the very structure of languages also seems to be related to
societal gender equality: In a study by Prewitt-Freilino, Caswell, and Laakso, countries with
grammatical gender languages reached lower levels of general gender equality than countries
with natural gender languages and genderless languages (Prewitt-Freilino, Caswell, & Laakso,
2012, who analyzed 134 countries with different language systems, controlled for geographic,
religious, political, and developmental differences). In their study, gender equality was assessed
with the help of the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index (GGI; Hausmann,
Tyson, & Zahidi, 2009). The study by Prewitt-Freilino and colleagues provides information on
the correlation between language structure and achieved gender equality in different countries,
but it tackles this issue on the level of the language system. However, as outlined above,
4
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
countries with grammatical gender language vary considerably regarding their achieved gender
equality. Therefore, it remains an open question, to what extent the level of gender equality in a
country is related, for example, to the way its language is being used, that is, to whether language
use is more gender-fair or less so, and which factors might affect language use, such as language
policies and/or specific features of language structure. Observing actual language use in a country can provide information about efforts to promote gender equality within the framework of a
given language structure. The present study therefore investigates relations between achieved
gender equality and actual language use in countries where the same type of language is spoken,
namely, grammatical gender languages. We opted for languages with grammatical gender as
gender is particularly visible in these languages (Hellinger & Bußmann, 2001b) and achieved
gender equality tends to be comparatively low in the respective countries (Prewitt-Freilino et al.,
2012).
Socioeconomic and Cultural Variations of Gender Equality in the
Countries Under Study
To investigate correspondences of gender equality and language use, we selected European countries with different levels of achieved gender equality. As in past research (see Prewitt-Freilino
et al., 2012), we used the GGI as an indicator of gender equality (Hausmann et al., 2012). The
GGI is based on statistical data on gender equality in different domains of life, including educational attainment, political empowerment, and economic participation. Although the level of gender equality in European countries on average is fairly high, there are pronounced differences
between individual countries, such as Iceland (first rank) and Italy (Rank 80). We selected two
German-speaking countries with comparatively higher levels of gender equality, Switzerland
(Rank 10 on the GGI; Hausmann et al., 2012) and Austria (Rank 20), as well as two Slavicspeaking countries, Poland (Rank 53) and the Czech Republic (Rank 73) with comparatively
lower levels. As the gender regimes in these Western and Eastern European countries have different histories and trajectories (Pascall & Lewis, 2004), we also had a closer look on egalitarian
values in these countries.
First, we examined the power distance dimension of cultural differences as defined in the
Value System Module (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede et al., 2010). The power distance index measures egalitarian values using the acceptance of unequal power distribution in organizations and
countries. Based on this criterion, rankings are available for 76 countries, among them the four
countries included in the present study. The rankings of the four countries matched the levels of
achieved gender equality specified in the GGI: While in Switzerland and Austria, public acceptance of power differences and inequality was low (Ranks 72 and 76, respectively, Hofstede
et al., 2010), power differences and inequalities were found to be more readily accepted in the
two Slavic-speaking countries (Czech Republic ranks 45/46 and Poland ranks 27-29).
Second, we found correspondences between gender egalitarian values as measured in the
Global Leadership & Organizational Behavior Effectiveness study (GLOBE; comparison of the
Eastern European cluster with the Germanic European cluster; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman,
& Gupta, 2004) with the GGI rankings of the countries under investigation. In contrast to these
gender egalitarian values, gender egalitarian practices, that is, the perception of actual gender
differences, showed a different pattern: Managers from the Eastern European cluster perceived
the practices in their countries to be more gender egalitarian than Germanic European managers.
One reason may be that in Eastern European countries, inequalities are more taken for granted
(reflected in higher values on the power distance dimension), with the result that inequalities are
perceived as smaller than in the Germanic European countries, although they are not (as shown
by the GGI).
Hodel et al.
5
Finally, we consulted the World Values Survey (WVS; World Values Survey Association,
2016) and the European Value Survey (last wave 2008; EVS, 2016) which also address aspects
of gender equality. The WVS measured the following attitudes: the right to work for women and
men when jobs are scarce, the importance of university education for boys and girls, and the suitability of women and men as business executives or political leaders. For the countries under
investigation, data only exist for certain periods of time, and there are no data at all for Austria.
In general, however, available data for the Czech Republic, Poland, and Switzerland indicate that
support for male privileges has decreased over time. As for differences between countries, if any,
male privileges received less support in Switzerland compared with Poland and the Czech
Republic, which is in line with the GGI ranking. In the EVS, respondents were asked whether
men have more right to a job than women when jobs are scarce. Interestingly, the expressed support of male privileges in times when jobs are scarce was quite similar in the four countries, less
than 30% of respondents agreed (data from 2008; EVS, 2016).
Taken together, the differences in achieved gender equality—as indicated by the GGI, which
guided our selection of countries—were generally matched by the presence of egalitarian values
in these countries: The two German-speaking countries show higher levels of socioeconomic
gender equality (as measured by the GGI) than the two Slavic-speaking countries; they were also
found to possess more (gender) egalitarian values. In other words, in both Eastern European
countries, “capitalist transition has eroded the Communist gender equality legacy” (Pollert, 2003,
p. 332). However, equality values seem to increase and to converge in all four countries (World
Values Survey Association, 2016). Nevertheless, it has to be emphasized that gender equality
(e.g., equality in income) is far from accomplished across Europe (Pascall & Lewis, 2004), a fact
that indicates how deeply entrenched male power is and remains in European societies (Pollert,
2003). This makes the research on every aspect of factors related to gender equality—including
linguistic factors—an important ongoing challenge.
Linguistic Gender-Fairness in the Languages Under Study
Different strategies can be pursued to reduce gender asymmetries in language: neutralization,
feminization (Bußmann & Hellinger, 2003), and a context-dependent combination of the two
(Schweizerische Bundeskanzlei, 1996/2009). Neutralization means that gender-marked terms
are replaced with gender-indefinite nouns, such as epicenes (i.e., forms with invariant grammatical gender which refer to female as well as male persons, for example, osobafem., “person” in
Polish or Czech; jedinecmasc., “individual” in Czech; or Fachkraftfem., “expert” in German) or the
plural form of nominalized participles or adjectives (e.g., Studierende “students [studying ones]”
in German or vedoucí “leaders” in Czech), where there is no grammatical gender distinction.
Feminization, on the contrary, consists of an explicit reference to women. Thus, feminine and
masculine forms are used in combination whenever both genders could be concerned, for example, German Elektrikerinnen und Elektriker “[female and male] electricians”; Polish nauczycielki
i nauczyciele “[female and male] teachers”; Czech žadatelky a žadatelé “[female and male]
applicant”; or abbreviated forms (e.g., German Elektriker/in; Polish nauczyciel/ka; Czech
žadatel/ka). For many grammatical gender languages, including German, Polish, and Czech,
feminization has been suggested (Hellinger & Bußmann, 2003), and nowadays more often a
combination of feminization and neutralization (Schweizerische Bundeskanzlei, 1996/2009).
In addition to neutralization and feminization, a novel linguistic form occurs especially in job
advertisements, namely, the combination of a masculine job title with m/f for male/female, for
example, German Geschäftsführermasc. m/w, “CEO m/f.” This pattern is used in several languages
such as Dutch (Pauwels, 1998), Spanish (European Parliament, 2008), and German
(Bundesministerium für Frauen und Öffentlichen Dienst, 2009; Greve, Iding, & Schmusch,
2002; Lujansky-Lammer, 2006).
6
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
Languages differ in the ease with which gender-fair language can be implemented. There are,
for example, remarkable differences between German (Germanic language) and Polish or Czech
(Slavic languages): It is fairly easy to derive feminine role nouns from masculine ones in German
by adding the feminine suffix -in (e.g., Boxerin “[female] boxer” derived from Boxermasc. “boxer”)
or by substituting the element -mann or -herr “man” with its counterpart -frau “woman” (e.g.,
Ratsfrau “female member of the city council” as counterpart of Ratsherr “male member of the
city council”). That feminine and masculine personal nouns can be created relatively symmetrically may reflect the egalitarian culture in German-speaking countries (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede
et al., 2010). The efforts of promoting gender-fair language over the past decades (Schweizerische
Bundeskanzlei, 1996/2009; UNESCO, 1999) are an additional sign of the importance of egalitarian cultural values in Switzerland and Austria. In Slavic languages, it is more difficult to refer to
women and men symmetrically (Koniuszaniec & Blaszkowa, 2003). In Polish, for example,
feminine forms of certain role nouns refer to a lower status (e.g., profesormasc. designates a university professor, whereas profesorka, fem. is a high school teacher), coincide with diminutives
(e.g., muzyczka, fem. “female musician” and “little music”), or even denote objects (e.g., Polish
drukarka, fem. derived from drukarz, masc. “printer” can refer to a “female printer” and a “printing machine”). The difficulty in creating feminine equivalents of masculine role nouns is one
reason why many Polish role nouns are available in the masculine only. Unlike Polish, both
masculine and feminine forms are available for most Czech job titles, but some feminine forms
are used infrequently (Čmejrková, 2003). These are indications that hierarchical cultural values
are deep-rooted in Poland and the Czech Republic. Here, status differences are more accepted
and can be expressed more openly (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede et al., 2010).
To sum up, language use as a subtle mechanism can contribute to the maintenance of gender
hierarchies (Ridgeway & Correll, 2004; Sczesny et al., 2016) and can thus support hierarchical structures in general (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede et al., 2010). Guidelines for gender-fair language, on the
contrary, aim at counteracting inequalities and can be seen as expressing lesser acceptance of (gender) inequalities. Apart from linguistic features and language policies, cultural values of egalitarianism and gender equality as well may influence the use of gender-fair language, as outlined above.
Aims of the Study and Hypotheses
The present research aims to determine whether the use of gender-fair language is related to
language policies, levels of achieved gender equality, and egalitarian cultural values in different
countries as assessed in previous studies (e.g., Hausmann et al., 2012; Hofstede et al., 2010;
Prewitt-Freilino et al., 2012). This question is examined on the basis of job advertisements in
the four European countries whose linguistic and cultural characteristics have been outlined
above: Czech Republic, Poland, Austria, and Switzerland. We focused on job advertisements
because gender-fair language is of particular importance for girls’ and boys’ interest in a career
as well as in personnel recruitment (Bem & Bem, 1973; Horvath & Sczesny, 2016; Stout &
Dasgupta, 2011; Vervecken et al., 2013). Furthermore, job advertisements are cross-linguistically highly comparable in form and content. As economic sectors tend to be gender-segregated,
we analyzed advertisements from typically male, typically female, and gender-neutral branches.
With this investigation, we aim to contribute to a deeper understanding of the interplay of gender-fair language and egalitarian values in general as well as gender equality in particular.
We expected gender-fair job titles to be more frequent than gender-specific ones in the two
German-speaking countries, where an unequal distribution of power in general is less accepted
and gender inequalities are smaller (egalitarian values, high level of socioeconomic gender
equality). For the Slavic-speaking countries, we expected gender-specific job titles to be more
prevalent than gender-fair forms, in line with the openly expressed gender hierarchy in those
countries (nonegalitarian values, low level of socioeconomic gender equality; Hypothesis 1).
Hodel et al.
7
In addition, we expected different frequencies of gender-fair job titles in different economic
branches according to the respective gender proportions. In Western societies, professions and
economic branches still show considerable gender segregation (e.g., Bundesamt für Statistik,
2012; Eurostat, 2012): Across Europe, constructional steel and metal work and transportation/
logistics are male-dominated branches (more than 70% male employees), for instance, while
social care and health care are female-dominated (less than 30% male employees) and food services and insurance are gender-balanced (Eurostat, 2012). Language use may reflect these differences: Lujansky-Lammer (2006) observed that gender-specific forms (i.e., either masculine or
feminine forms) were most frequent in Austrian job advertisements for gender-typical branches.
This effect was markedly stronger for male-dominated than for female-dominated fields, which
is not surprising as men have long outnumbered women in the paid workforce and as there is the
tradition of using masculine forms as generics (Irmen & Steiger, 2005). We therefore assumed
the frequency of linguistic forms to vary with the gender-typicality of the branches: Gender-fair
job titles were expected to be more frequent in gender-balanced than in gender-typical branches,
whereas gender-specific job titles were expected to be more frequent in the gender-typical
branches than in the gender-balanced one (Hypothesis 2).
The effect of gender-typicality of the branches should be weaker in the two German-speaking
countries with their more egalitarian cultural values than in the two countries with Slavic languages (Hypothesis 3).
As described above, a range of different forms is considered gender-fair. One special case is
the combination form, which sticks to the traditional use of masculine job title, but indicates that
both men and women are included by adding m/f for male/female, for example, German
Geschäftsführermasc. m/w, “general manager m/f.” Linguistically, this form is a minimum solution, and it is doubtful to what extent it can be considered gender-fair. To gain insights into the
current use of the new combination form masculine + m/f in job advertisements, we explored its
occurrence in comparison with other gender-fair forms. In line with Hypothesis 2, we expected
the combination form to be more frequent in gender-typical branches (especially in the maledominated branch) than in the gender-balanced branch (Hypothesis 4).
Method
We analyzed online job advertisements from Switzerland, Austria, Poland, and the Czech Republic
regarding the linguistic form of the job title. We included the following three branches: constructional steel and metal work (male-dominated, for example, locksmith, construction engineer), restaurants and food services (gender-balanced, for example, waiter, sous-chef), and health care
(female-dominated, for example, doctor, care worker). Available census data for these sectors documented the gender distribution within each branch (European Union: Eurostat, 2012; Switzerland:
Bundesamt für Statistik, 2012) and showed that the gender proportions were comparable in the
countries under investigation. Furthermore, the selected branches were equally representative in the
four countries, in that they comprised 2% to 7% of all employees in each country (Bundesamt für
Statistik, 2012; Eurostat, 2012); all branches included low-status jobs as well as high-status jobs.
Information on gender equality and gender distributions in the four countries is presented in Table 1.
For the sampling of job advertisements, we used the job search engine Careerjet, which is
available in all four countries (i.e., careerjet.ch, careerjet.at, careerjet.pl, and careerjet.cz). This
search engine provides a list of all job advertisements published online and thus covers a large
variety of job offers (43,240 job ads in Switzerland, 32,389 in Austria, 70,547 in Poland, and
51,216 in the Czech Republic at the time of our study). The use of the same webpage allowed for
maximum comparability between countries. In each branch, the total number of job advertisements available was more than 1,000 (ranging between 1,142 for constructional steel and metal
work in Austria and 8,049 for restaurants and food services in Austria). In June 2012, we
8
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
Table 1. Country Information on Achieved Gender Equality and Percentage of Male Employees, in
Total and According to Branches.
% male employees
Country
Language
Switzerland
Austria
Poland
Czech
Republic
Germana
German
Polish
Czech
Power
distance
(rank)
GGI
2012
(rank)
26b (72)
11 (76)
68 (27-29)
57 (45-46)
.77 (10)
.74 (20)
.70 (53)
.68 (73)
Total
Femaledominated
branch
Genderbalanced
branch
Maledominated
branch
55
53
54
57
22
23
19
22
45
41
32
45
81
84
85
79
Note. Power distance is a dimension of national culture as described by Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov (2010). Scores
range from 0 to 100; 76 countries are ranked according to the acceptance of unequal power distribution. GGI is the
Global Gender Gap Index annually published by the World Economic Forum (Hausmann, Tyson, & Zahidi, 2012).
Equality scores range from 0 to 1; 135 countries are ranked according to the extent of gender equality achieved.
aGerman is the most widely spoken language in Switzerland; the statistics include employees with other native
languages (i.e., French, Italian, Rhaeto-Romanic).
bGerman-speaking sample. The French-speaking sample showed a higher acceptance of power distance (70, Rank
22-25).
Table 2. Coding Categories and Examples for Each Language.
Code
Masculine
Masculine + m/f
Gender-fair
Feminine
English examples
waiter
waiter m/f
waiter/waitress
waitress
German examples
Kellner
Kellner m/w
Kellner/Kellnerin
Kellnerin
Polish examples
kelner
kelner m/k
kelner/kelnerka
kelnerka
Czech examples
číšník
číšník m/z
číšník/číšnice
číšnice
Note. Gender-fair are all forms that address women and men equally, either by not differentiating for gender or by
combining a masculine and a feminine form.
randomly selected and downloaded 120 job advertisements from each of the three branches for
each of the four countries, which yielded a total of 1,440 job advertisements. In the Swiss sample,
only German-language job advertisements were analyzed.
We developed a coding form which provided linguistic categories for classifying the job titles
based on grammatical form and gender-fairness. The two gender-specific categories were: masculine form and feminine form; the two gender-fair categories were combination form (masculine + m/f) and other gender-fair forms (gender-neutral and masculine-feminine word pairs;
Table 2 provides examples of these categories in the different languages). Two independent raters
coded the linguistic form of the job titles. Interrater reliability was found to be high for all four
countries: Kappa = 0.874 (p < .001), 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.823, 0.925] for Czech job
titles; Kappa = 0.861 (p < .001), 95% CI = [0.798, 0.923] for Polish job titles; Kappa = 0.994 (p
< .001), 95% CI = [0.988, 1.000] for Austrian job titles; and Kappa = 1.000 (p < 0.001), that is,
complete agreement between the two raters, for Swiss job titles. Five job advertisements contained no clearly defined job title. Therefore, only 1,435 job ads were included in the analyses.
Results
All frequencies and percentages of the linguistic forms occurring in job advertisements from the
four countries are presented in Table 3, Figure 1, and Figure 2, differentiated for branches. To
9
Hodel et al.
Table 3. Frequencies (and Percentages) of the Different Forms of Job Titles by Country and Branch.
Job Titles
Gender-specific
Countries/Branch
Switzerland
Female-dominated
Gender-balanced
Male-dominated
Total
Austria
Female-dominated
Gender-balanced
Male-dominated
Total
Poland
Female-dominated
Gender-balanced
Male-dominated
Total
Czech Republic
Female-dominated
Gender-balanced
Male-dominated
Total
Overall
Female-dominated
Gender-balanced
Male-dominated
Total
Gender-fair
Masculine
Feminine
Masculine + m/f
Other gender-fair
n (%)
n (%)
n (%)
n (%)
3 (3)
34 (28)
57 (48)
94 (26)
13 (11)
5 (4)
0 (0)
18 (5)
14 (12)
17 (14)
23 (19)
54 (15)
90 (75)
64 (53)
38 (32)
192 (54)
4 (3)
17 (14)
12 (10)
33 (9)
2 (2)
1 (1)
0 (0)
3 (1)
14 (12)
25 (21)
52 (43)
91 (25)
99 (83)
77 (64)
56 (47)
232 (65)
96 (80)
84 (70)
119 (99)
299 (83)
18 (15)
23 (19)
0 (0)
41 (11)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
6 (5)
13 (11)
1 (1)
20 (6)
76 (64)
40 (33)
108 (90)
224 (63)
17 (14)
3 (3)
0 (0)
20 (6)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
25 (21)
77 (64)
12 (10)
114 (32)
179 (38)
175 (36)
296 (62)
650 (45)
50 (11)
32 (7)
0 (0)
61 (6)
28 (6)
42 (9)
75 (16)
145 (10)
220 (46)
231 (48)
107 (22)
558 (39)
Note. n = number of job ads in the specific category.
answer our research questions, we calculated analyses comparing gender-specific (i.e., masculine or feminine) job titles with gender-fair forms (combination form masculine + m/f or other
gender-fair forms).
The Use of Gender-Specific and Gender-Fair Forms Across Cultures and
Economic Branches
We calculated a log-linear analysis with the factors culture (German-speaking, Slavic-speaking),
branch (female-dominated, gender-balanced, male-dominated), and language form (gender-specific,
gender-fair) to investigate differences in the use of gender-specific versus gender-fair forms between
countries and branches. The log-linear analysis revealed a significant interaction (Country × Branch
× Language Form), χ2(6) = 82.944, p < .001.
To test Hypothesis 1, we calculated a chi-square test comparing the German-speaking countries (Switzerland and Austria combined) with the Slavic-speaking countries (Poland and Czech
10
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
100%
gender-fair
gender-specific
50%
0%
Switzerland
Austria
Poland
Czech Republic
Figure 1. Forms of job titles by country: Forms of gender-fair and gender-specific job titles used in job
ads, adding up to 100% for each country.
Figure 2. Forms of job titles by country and branch: Forms of gender-fair and gender-specific job titles
used in the three branches in each country, adding up to 100%.
Republic combined). In line with the hypothesis, gender-fair job titles were more frequent than
gender-specific job titles in the German-speaking countries (gender-fair: 79%, gender-specific:
21%), but less frequent than gender-specific job titles in the Slavic-speaking countries (genderfair: 13%, gender-specific: 87%), χ2(1) = 385.64, p < .001. The odds ratio (OR, i.e., Germanspeaking countries [gender-fair forms / gender-specific forms] / Slavic-speaking countries
[gender-fair forms / gender-specific forms]) showed that gender-fair job titles in relation to gender-specific job titles were 17 times more likely to occur in German-speaking countries compared with Slavic-speaking countries.
To test Hypothesis 2, we first calculated a chi-square test, comparing the use of gender-fair
and gender-specific job titles between branches over all countries. This revealed a reliable association between linguistic form of the job title and branch, χ2(2) = 30.63, p < .001. In line with
11
Hodel et al.
Table 4. Odds Ratios.
Female-dominated by
gender-balanced branch
Gender-balanced by
male-dominated branch
Ratio of the odds (gender-fair forms/masculine forms)a
Switzerland
3.1
Austria
3.3
Poland
0.4
Czech Republic
0.2
Ratio of the odds (gender-fair forms/combination forms)b
Switzerland
1.7
Austria
2.3
Female-dominated by
male-dominated branch
1.9
0.6
14.5
16.1
6.1
2.1
6.3
2.4
2.3
2.9
3.9
6.6
Note. This table presents odds ratios comparing language use between branches by country.
aOdds ratios comparing gender-fair and masculine forms between branches by country.
bOdds ratios comparing gender-fair and combination forms between branches by country.
Hypothesis 2, gender-fair forms were more frequent than gender-specific forms in the genderbalanced branch (i.e., food services: 43% gender-specific forms, 57% gender-fair forms). Again
in line with Hypothesis 2, gender-specific forms prevailed in the male-dominated branch (i.e.,
constructional steel and metal work: 62% gender-specific forms, 38% gender-fair forms).
Surprisingly, gender-fair forms were more frequently used than gender-specific forms in the
female-dominated branch (i.e., health care: 48% gender-specific forms, 52% gender-fair forms).
ORs showed that gender-fair job titles in relation to gender-specific job titles were more than
1.5 times more likely to be used in the gender-balanced branch (OR = 2.2) and also in the
female-dominated branch (OR = 1.83) than in the male-dominated branch while the femaledominated branch and the gender-balanced branch did not significantly differ from each other
(OR = 1.2).
To address Hypothesis 3, we analyzed the specific patterns within each country. Chi-square
tests revealed significant interactions between branches and language use in all countries, for
Poland, χ2(2) = 11.54, p = .003; for the Czech Republic, χ2(2) = 90.32, p < .001; Switzerland,
χ2(2) = 33.97, p < .001; and Austria, χ2(2) = 6.58, p = .037. We analyzed frequencies and calculated ORs, as shown in Tables 3 and 4 as well as in Figure 2. For the two Slavic-speaking
countries, frequencies showed that gender-specific job titles were highly frequent in all
branches but much more so in Polish than in Czech. Gender-fair job titles, which were much
more frequent in Czech than in Polish, occurred more often in the female-dominated branch
and the gender-balanced branch than in the male-dominated branch in both countries. In the
two German-speaking countries, gender-fair job titles were more frequent in the female-dominated branch and the gender-balanced branch than in the male-dominated one. However, a
striking difference occurred with respect to gender-specific forms: while in Switzerland gender-specific forms were more frequent in the male-dominated branch than in the female-dominated branch and the gender-balanced branch, gender-specific job titles generally were quite
rare in Austrian job advertisements.
The Use of the Combination Form Masculine + m/f
To test Hypothesis 4, we compared the frequency of combination forms with that of other genderfair forms by country and branch. As combination forms were not used in the two Slavic-speaking
countries, we conducted a log-linear analysis with the factors country (Switzerland, Austria),
branch (female-dominated, gender-balanced, male-dominated), and language form (masculine +
m/f, gender-fair). The analysis revealed significant main effects for country, χ2(1) = 10.45, p =
12
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
.001; branch, χ2(2) = 6.34, p = .042; and language form, χ2(1) = 142.89, p < .001, as well as a
significant interaction (Branch × Language Form), χ2(2) = 47.94, p < .001. We analyzed patterns
of usage in the different branches for each country. Chi-square tests for Switzerland, χ2(2) =
13.26 p = .001, and for Austria, χ2(2) = 35.88, p < .001, revealed significant differences between
the branches. To examine the specific patterns within each country, we analyzed frequencies and
calculated ORs, as shown in Tables 3 and 4 as well as in Figure 2. In line with Hypothesis 4, it
was more than twice as likely that the combination form rather than some other gender-fair form
was used in the male-dominated branch (but not in the female-dominated branch) compared with
the gender-balanced branch in both German-speaking countries.
Discussion
Our study is the first to compare the use of gender-fair language in job advertisements in countries with egalitarian cultural values and high levels of gender equality, Switzerland and Austria
(both German-speaking), with its use in countries with hierarchical cultural values and lower
levels of gender equality, Poland and Czech Republic (both with Slavic languages).
As predicted in Hypothesis 1, our results suggest that gender-fair language is more frequently
used in countries with a high level of gender equality (i.e., Switzerland and Austria) than in countries with lower levels of gender equality (i.e., Poland and Czech Republic; GGI; Hausmann et al.,
2012). These differences in the socioeconomic status of women and men correspond mostly to
cultural differences in egalitarian values (power distance, Value System Module; Hofstede et al.,
2010; gender egalitarian values, GLOBE; House et al., 2004; World Values Survey Association,
2016; EVS, 2016) and differences in the advancement of gender-fair language (Hellinger &
Bußmann, 2003). As for the linguistic forms of job titles used in each country, we observed the
following patterns: In Switzerland, gender-fair forms were most prevalent, but gender-specific
forms as well were frequently used (about one third of the cases). The predominance of genderfair forms in Switzerland can be explained with the fact that language guidelines have been promoting gender-fair language for about 20 years (e.g., Schweizerische Bundeskanzlei, 1996/2009),
a fact, which in turn reflects the egalitarian values held in this country. In Austria, we found mostly
gender-fair job titles, whereas gender-specific forms were very rare. The high frequency of gender-fair job titles in Austrian job advertisements can plausibly be linked to the equal treatment act,
which demands the gender-fair phrasing of job advertisements (Bundesministerium für Frauen
und Öffentlichen Dienst, 2009; GIBG, 2004). As Austrian companies can be fined for advertising
jobs in gender-specific wording (i.e., with a masculine or a feminine form only), there is considerable pressure to use gender-fair language. Thus, the equal treatment act seems to be an influential
means of implementing gender-fairness in language.
In Poland, we found mostly gender-specific (above all masculine) job titles and very few
gender-fair forms. Cultural features such as power hierarchies (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede et al.,
2010) and language features (Koniuszaniec & Blaszkowa, 2003) such as the difficulty of creating
feminine counterparts of masculine job titles in Polish result in a language use that strongly
reflects traditional gender roles. As we do not know of any guidelines for gender-fair language in
Poland, the small number of gender-fair job titles in Polish job advertisements does not come as
a surprise. In the Czech Republic, gender-specific forms predominated, but there was also a fair
share of gender-fair forms (about one third). This may be due to the fact that feminine counterparts of masculine forms are at least available in Czech (Valdrová, 2001; Valdrová et al., 2010).
But although gender-fair forms exist or can be created in Czech, they do not seem to be widely
used. Again this may be explained with the higher acceptance of hierarchies and inequalities in
this country (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede et al., 2010).
In line with Hypothesis 2 and with earlier research (Lujansky-Lammer, 2006), we found that
jobs from gender-balanced branches were more often advertised in gender-fair than in
Hodel et al.
13
gender-specific forms, whereas in the male-dominated branch more gender-specific (mostly
masculine) than gender-fair forms were used. Contrary to our hypothesis, gender-fair and genderspecific forms were almost equally frequent in the female-dominated branch. However, feminine
forms, although generally infrequent, were most prevalent in the female-dominated branch.
Thus, language use in the investigated branches indeed followed base rates of women and men
working in the respective branches and their gender-typicality.
As predicted in Hypothesis 3, this pattern was more pronounced in the Slavic-speaking countries than in the German-speaking ones, due to differences in language policies and gender equality. In the Slavic-speaking countries, gender-fair forms were most frequently used in the
gender-balanced branch and less in the gender-typical branches, where more gender-specific
forms were used compared with the gender-balanced branch. This linguistic usage mirrors gender distributions in the different branches (Eurostat, 2012). In the German-speaking countries,
gender-fair forms were frequent in the female-dominated branch as well as in the gender-balanced branch, but not in the male-dominated branch, where gender-specific forms predominated.
This is notably different from the Slavic-speaking countries. Instead of gender-specific forms,
gender-fair forms were most frequent in the female-dominated branch.
Finally, we analyzed the use of the combination form masculine + m/f. This form may be
considered the weakest variant of gender-fair language, but it offers an easy and effortless way of
indicating that a job title refers to both men and women. The combination form occurred only in
the two German-speaking countries and was completely absent in job advertisements from the
two Slavic-speaking countries. In line with Hypothesis 4, the combination form was particularly
frequent in the male-dominated branch in both German-speaking countries, whereas other gender-fair forms were more frequent in the female-dominated branch and the gender-balanced
branch. The differences between branches were larger in Austria than in Switzerland, as can be
seen in Table 4. One reason may be that in Austria, the combination form is a simple possibility
of complying with the equal treatment act in male-dominated fields (Bundesministerium für
Frauen und Öffentlichen Dienst, 2009). In a way, these results mirror the pattern in the Slavicspeaking countries: Masculine forms still prevail in the male-dominated branch, even if combined with a hint that both, women and men, are addressed.
The systematic differences in frequencies of linguistic forms, between countries on one hand
and occupational branches on the other hand, suggest that language use reflects cultural values
regarding stratification and gender equality as well as ideas about typical gender roles. The existence of guidelines and legal regulations may promote the use of gender-fair language, but legal
regulations in particular may also foster the invention of easy solutions such as the combination
form. Nevertheless, this strategy may be a first step toward gender-fair forms in languages where
the derivation of feminine job titles is difficult (such as Polish).
Theoretical and Practical Implications
The findings reported here are highly relevant for future research on gender and language. They
show that not only language structure (i.e., the existence or absence of grammatical gender;
Prewitt-Freilino et al., 2012) is associated with levels of achieved socioeconomic gender equality
but language use as well. The high proportion of gender-fair forms in the two German-speaking
countries suggests that the efforts to promote gender-fair language in the past decades (e.g.,
Schweizerische Bundeskanzlei, 1996/2009) have been successful. The high prevalence of gender-fair forms in Austrian job advertisements in particular shows that legal regulations are effective (Bundesministerium für Frauen und Öffentlichen Dienst, 2009; GIBG, 2004). Gender-fair
language as found in the female-dominated branch and the gender-balanced branch in the two
German-speaking countries may help to counteract the gender-typicality of professions. This can
lead to a more balanced visibility of women and men (Stahlberg et al., 2007) and enhance equal
14
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
opportunities in hiring situations (e.g., Stout & Dasgupta, 2011). If gender-fair forms also gain
ground in male-dominated branches in the future, these effects may be even more pronounced.
But our results also show how difficult it is to challenge the existing gender hierarchy: It is
exactly in the male-dominated branch that gender-specific forms are still common and equal visibility is not achieved. Previous research has revealed that gender-fair language is of particular
importance in male-dominated fields (Vervecken et al., 2013); the current linguistic usage may
thus contribute to perpetuating gender stereotypes (Bosak et al., 2012; Eagly, 1987) and gender
hierarchies (Ridgeway & Correll, 2004).
That the vast majority of jobs are still advertised with gender-specific job titles in the two
Slavic-speaking countries, on the contrary, indicates that there is still a long way to achieve linguistic gender-fairness in these countries. As mentioned before, this seems to be linked to a higher
acceptance of inequalities (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede et al., 2010). Moreover, gender-fair language
may not be immediately beneficiary in these speech communities: Speakers of Polish, for example, were found to devalue female applicants who introduced themselves with feminine rather than
masculine job titles, and were less likely to indicate that they would hire them (Formanowicz,
Bedynska, Cisłak, Braun, & Sczesny, 2013). Hence, (female) speakers’ wish to belong to the highstatus group may outweigh their wish to achieve more (gender) equality. Gender-neutral forms
and the combination form may therefore be interesting variants of gender-fair wording for Slavic
languages. In all, it seems to depend on the cultural and linguistic background whether an increased
visibility of women and a higher linguistic salience of gender have favorable or unfavorable consequences for women. However, language use is dynamic, and feminine forms may lose negative
connotations with increasing use over time. Therefore, raising attention for gender-fairness in
language and developing guidelines could be of great importance.
To sum up, language use reflects gender (in)equality and also contributes to its maintenance
or reduction (Semin, 2000). The wording of job advertisements in particular may serve as an
institutional-level factor which promotes gender (in)equality (Ridgeway & Correll, 2004).
Linguistic inequalities seem to be more pronounced in countries with hierarchical cultural values
than in countries with egalitarian cultural values and also more pronounced in typically male
compared with typically female and gender-neutral branches.
Limitations and Future Directions
Obviously, our method does not allow for causal inferences about the relation between language
use, egalitarian cultural values, and gender equality or about the way linguistic, cultural, and
legal influences interact. Also, our research did not directly measure levels of egalitarian cultural
values and gender equality but relied on differences between the four countries that were documented in prior research. Therefore, our findings concerning the use of gender-fair and genderbiased language may not be directly related to these societal differences. To gain more insight
into the interplay between language, social structure, and values, future research needs to investigate causal relationships between gender-fair language and gender equality or cultural values in
different societies, for instance, with the help of longitudinal studies. Furthermore, the relation
between gender-fair language use and egalitarian values should not only be investigated on a
national level using archival data, but also on the level of individual language behavior, to complement our findings with behavioral data.
It should also be kept in mind that the present findings are limited to two Slavic-speaking and
two German-speaking European countries (grammatical gender languages). Thus, research on
other languages and countries is needed to broaden the scope of our findings. Especially countries with substantially different levels of human development (i.e., many African and Asian
countries; Human Development Index, United Nations Development Programme, 2014) differ
markedly from the current sample.
Hodel et al.
15
The branches selected for our study represent gender-typical and neutral areas of the job market. But again, our results should be validated by examining further branches. And it has to be
kept in mind that while we considered gender distributions within the branches, we did not control for other features of the jobs advertised such as job status, private/public sector, or wages. We
thus analyzed the association of language form and gender-typicality on a macro level and discovered general trends pertaining to entire economic sectors using general indicators published
in previous research. Future studies could analyze the influence of specific job features and could
also include further features of job advertisements (such as depictions and job descriptions) in the
analysis.
Due to the lack of earlier findings on the combination form masculine + m/f, we could only
offer exploratory analyses. More research is needed to fully understand when and why these
forms are employed and how they are interpreted. This is of particular importance, as combination forms have been recommended for job advertisements in several countries (e.g., Dutch,
Pauwels, 1998; Spanish, European Parliament, 2008; and German, Bundesministerium für
Frauen und Öffentlichen Dienst, 2009; Greve et al., 2002; Lujansky-Lammer, 2006).
Conclusion
The present study has revealed differences in the use of gender-fair language in job advertisements between countries with egalitarian and hierarchical cultural values as well as between
branches with different proportions of female employees. Cultural factors (such as egalitarian
values, levels of achieved gender equality, a tradition of feminist language critique, or the lack of
such a tradition; Bußmann & Hellinger, 2003) apparently interact with linguistic features (e.g.,
the difficulty of creating feminine counterparts to masculine personal nouns in Poland,
Koniuszaniec & Blaszkowa, 2003), legal factors (such as the Austrian equal treatment act), or the
proportion of female employees (more gender-fair forms in branches with numerous female
employees). Our results suggest that political movements and legal regulations may indeed contribute to promoting gender-fair language in job advertisements, an effect which, in turn, may
help to achieve gender equality in recruitment processes.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Friederike Braun for her valuable comments on our investigation and findings.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research leading to these results has received funding from the European
Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under Grant Agreement No. 237907
(Marie Curie Initial Training Network [ITN]—Language, Cognition, and Gender).
References
Bem, S., & Bem, D. (1973). Does sex-biased job advertising “aid and abet” sex discrimination? Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 3, 6-18. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1973.tb01290.x
Bojarska, K. (2011). Wpływ androcentrycznych i inkluzywnych płciowo konstrukcji językowych na skojarzenia z płcią [Influence of androcentric and gender-inclusive lexical constructions on gender-associational responses]. Studia Psychologiczne, 49, 53-68. doi:10.2478/v10167-011-0010-y
16
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
Bosak, J., Sczesny, S., & Eagly, A. H. (2012). The impact of social roles on trait judgments: A critical reexamination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 429-440. doi:10.1177/0146167211427308
Braun, F., Sczesny, S., & Stahlberg, D. (2005). Das generische Maskulinum und die Alternativen:
Empirische Studien zur Wirkung generischer Personenbezeichnungen im Deutschen [Masculine generics and their alternatives: Empirical studies on the effects of generic terms in German]. Germanistische
Linguistik, 167/168, 77-87.
Bußmann, H., & Hellinger, M. (2003). Engendering female visibility in German. In M. Hellinger & H.
Bußmann (Eds.), Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men (Vol. 3,
pp. 141-174). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/impact.11.10bus
Bundesamt für Statistik (2012). Beschäftigungsstatistik (BESTA) [Employment statistics]. Retrieved from
https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/industrie-dienstleistungen/unternehmen-beschaeftigte/beschaeftigungsstatistik/beschaeftigte.assetdetail.1460070.html
Bundesministerium für Frauen und Öffentlichen Dienst (2009). Geschlechtergerechte Stellenausschreibungen
[Gender-fair job advertisements] (Unabhängiger Bericht der Gleichbehandlungsanwaltschaft iS §3
Abs 5 GBK/GAW-Gesetz). Wien, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.bundesregierung.at/DocView.
axd?CobId=34384
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? [Occupational selfefficacy as a function of grammatical gender in French]. L’année psychologique, 105, 249-272.
doi:10.3406/psy.2005.29694
Čmejrková, S. (2003). Communicating gender in Czech. In M. Hellinger & H. Bußmann (Eds.), Gender
across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men (Vol. 3, pp. 27-57). Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/impact.11.06cme
Crawford, M., & English, L. (1984). Generic versus specific inclusion of women in language: Effects on
recall. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 13, 373-381. doi:10.1007/BF01068152
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum. doi:10.4324/9780203781906
European Parliament (2008). El lenguaje no sexista en el Parlamento Europeo [Non-sexist language in the
European Parliament]. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/publications/2009/0001/
P6_PUB%282009%290001_ES.pdf
European Value Survey (2016). European values study longitudinal data file 1981-2008 (EVS 1981-2008)
[ZA4804 Data file Version 3.0.0]. Cologne, Germany: GESIS Data Archive. doi:10.4232/1.12253
Eurostat (2012). Beschäftigung nach Geschlecht, Alter und detaillierten Wirtschaftszweigen [Employment
according to gender, age, and detailed economic sectors] (NACE Rev. 2 Zweisteller). Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-datasets/-/lfsa_egan22d
Formanowicz, M., Bedynska, S., Cisłak, A., Braun, F., & Sczesny, S. (2013). Side effects of gender-fair
language: How feminine job titles influence the evaluation of female applicants. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 43, 62-71. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1924
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, 206-212. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.1.206
Gastil, J. (1990). Generic pronouns and sexist language: The oxymoronic character of masculine generics.
Sex Roles, 23, 629-643. doi:10.1007/BF00289252
Gaucher, D., Friesen, J., & Kay, A. C. (2011). Evidence that gendered wording in job advertisements
exist and sustain gender inequality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 109-128.
doi:10.1037/a0022530
Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (GIBG) [Equal treatment act] (2004). Gebot der geschlechtsneutralen
Stellenausschreibung [Provision of gender-neutrality in job advertisements] (§ 9). Retrieved from
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/BgblAuth/BGBLA_2004_I_66/BGBLA_2004_I_66.pdf
Greve, M., Iding, M., & Schmusch, B. (2002). Geschlechtsspezifische Formulierungen in Stellenangeboten
[Gender-specific wording in job advertisements]. Linguistics Online, 11, 105-161. Retrieved from
http://www.linguistik-online.de/39_09/elmiger.html
Guentherodt, I., Hellinger, M., Pusch, L. F., & Trömel-Plötz, S. (1980). Richtlinien zur Vermeidung sexistischen Sprachgebrauchs [Guidelines for the avoidance of sexist language]. Linguistische Berichte,
69, 15-21.
Hodel et al.
17
Hamilton, M. C. (1988). Using masculine generics: Does generic he increase male bias in the user’s imagery? Sex Roles, 19, 785-799. doi:10.1007/BF00288993
Hausmann, R., Tyson, L. D., & Zahidi, S. (2009). The Global Gender Gap 2009. Geneva, Switzerland: World
Economic Forum. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2009.
pdf
Hausmann, R., Tyson, L. D., & Zahidi, S. (2012). The Global Gender Gap 2012. Geneva, Switzerland: World
Economic Forum. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2012.
pdf
Heise, E. (2000). Sind Frauen mitgemeint? Eine empirische Untersuchung zum Verständnis des generischen
Maskulinums und seiner Alternativen [Are women included? An empirical study on the interpretation of masculine generics and their alternatives]. Sprache und Kognition - Zeitschrift für Sprach- &
Kognitionspsychologie und ihre Grenzgebiete, 19, 3-13. doi:10.1024//0253-4533.19.12.3
Hellinger, M., & Bierbach, C. (1993). Eine Sprache für beide Geschlechter [A language for both genders].
Bonn, Germany: Deutsche UNESCO-Kommission. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.de/fileadmin/
medien/Dokumente/Bibliothek/eine_sprache.pdf
Hellinger, M., & Bußmann, H. (2001a) (Eds.). Gender across languages (Vol. 1). Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/impact.9
Hellinger, M., & Bußmann, H. (2001b). Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women
and men. In M. Hellinger & H. Bußmann (Eds.), Gender across languages (Vol. 1, pp. 1-26).
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/impact.9.05hel
Hellinger, M., & Bußmann, H. (2002) (Eds.). Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of
women and men (Vol. 2). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/impact.10
Hellinger, M., & Bußmann, H. (2003) (Eds.). Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of
women and men (Vol. 3). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/impact.11
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly
Hills, CA: SAGE.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd
ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Horvath, L. K., & Sczesny, S. (2016). Reducing women’s lack of fit with leadership positions? Effects of
the wording of job advertisements. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 25, 316328. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2015.1067611
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and
organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Irmen, L. (2007). What’s in a (role) name? Formal and conceptual aspects of comprehending personal
nouns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 36, 431-456. doi:10.1007/s10936-007-9053-z
Irmen, L., & Steiger, V. (2005). Zur Geschichte des Generischen Maskulinums: Sprachwissenschaftliche,
sprachphilosophische und psychologische Aspekte im historischen Diskurs [On the history of masculine generics: Linguistic, philosophical, and psychological aspects in historical discourse]. Zeitschrift
für Germanistische Linguistik, 33, 212-235.
Kargl, M., Wetschanow, K., Wodak, R., & Perle, N. (1997). Kreatives Formulieren. Anleitungen zu
geschlechtergerechtem Sprachgebrauch [Creative use of language. Recommendations for gender-fair
language] (Bd. 13 der Schriftenreihe der Frauenministerin, Bundeskanzleramt). Wien, Austria.
Koniuszaniec, G., & Blaszkowa, K. (2003). Language and gender in Polish. In M. Hellinger & H. Bußmann
(Eds.), Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men (Vol. 3, pp. 259285). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/impact.11.15kon
Lujansky-Lammer, E. (2006). Stellenausschreibungen—ein Spiegelbild der Gesellschaft [Job advertisements—A reflection of society] (Unpublished diploma thesis). University of Graz, Austria.
Maass, A., & Arcuri, L. (1996). Stereotyping and language. In C. N. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M. Hewstone
(Eds.), Stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 193-226). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
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
Pascall, G., & Lewis, J. (2004). Emerging gender regimes and policies for gender equality in a wider
Europe. Journal of Social Policy, 33, 373-394. doi:10.1017/S004727940400772X
Pauwels, A. (1998). Feminist language planning: Has it been worthwhile. Linguistik Online, 1, 1-12.
18
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
Pollert, A. (2003). Women, work, and equal opportunities in post-communist transition. Work, Employment
and Society, 17, 331-357. doi:10.1177/0950017003017002006
Prewitt-Freilino, J. L., Caswell, T. A., & Laakso, E. K. (2012). The gendering of language: A comparison
of gender equality in countries with gendered, natural gender and genderless languages. Sex Roles, 66,
268-281. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0083-5
Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender
beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society, 18, 510-531. doi:10.1177/0891243204265269
Schweizerische Bundeskanzlei (2009). Geschlechtergereche Sprache. Leitfaden zum geschlechtergerechten Formulieren im Deutschen [Gender-fair language. Guideline for gender-fair usage in German].
Retrieved from http://www.bk.admin.ch/dokumentation/sprachen/04915/05313/index.html?lang=de
(Original work published 1996).
Sczesny, S., Formanowicz, M., & Moser, F. (2016). Can gender-fair language reduce gender stereotyping
and discrimination? Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1-11. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00025
Semin, G. R. (2000). Language as a cognitive and behavioral structuring resource: Question-answer
exchanges. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (pp. 75-104).
doi:10.1080/14792772043000004
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, NY: Psychology Press.
Stout, J. G., & Dasgupta, N. (2011). When he doesn’t mean you: Gender-exclusive language as ostracism.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 757-769. doi:10.1177/0146167211406434
United Nations Development Programme (2014). Human development report 2014. Sustaining human
progress: Reducing vulnerabilities and building resilience. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/sites/
default/files/hdr14-report-en-1.pdf
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (1999). Guidelines for gender-neutral
language. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001149/114950mo.pdf
Valdrová, J. (2001). Novinové titulky z hlediska genderu [Article headings from a gender perspective].
Naše řeč, 84, 90-96.
Valdrová, J., Knotková-Čapková, B., & Paclíková, P. (2010). Kultura genderově vyváženého vyjadřování
[The culture of gender-fair language use]. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, Czech Republic.
Retrieved from http://data.idnes.cz/soubory/studium/A100125_BAR_GENDER_PRIRUCKA.PDF
Valdrová, J. (2013). Typologische Unterschiede zwischen Sprachen als Argument gegen geschlechtergerechte Sprachkritik und Sprachpflege? [Typological differences between languages as an argument against language criticism and language cultivation?] In M. Nekula, Šichová, K. & Valdrová, J.
(Hg.). Bilingualer Sprachgebrauch und Typologie: Deutsch – Tschechisch [Bilingual language use and
typology: German - Czech] (pp 141-158). Tübingen: Julius Groos Verlag.
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, 82, 208-220. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2013.01.008
World Values Survey Association (2016). World Value Survey 1981-2014 official aggregate v.20150418
(JDSystems). Madrid, Spain. Available from www.worldvaluessurvey.org