effects of modeling on the use of nonsexist language among high school freshpersons and seniors

Sex Roles, Vol. 33, Nos. 11/12, 1995

Effects of Modeling on the Use of Nonsexist Language Among High School Freshpersons and Seniors 1

Christopher Cronin 2 and Sawsan Jreisat Transylvania University

The present study examined how modeling, grade in school, gender, and attitudes toward women relate to sexist or nonsexist language usage in high school students. Eighty-four female and 60 male high school students, including 77% white, 20% African-American, and 3% "other" participants, completed three questionnaires. The Sexist Language Detector (SLD), a 24 item questionnaire, assessed the use of sexist and nonsexist language by requiring written solutions to ethical dilemmas. Instructions on the SLD included either sexist examples, nonsexist examples, or no example (control). The nonsexist examples condition served as the modeling intervention. Participants completed the shortened versions of J. T. Spence and R. L. Helmreich's Personal Attributes Questionnaire of 1978 and Attitudes toward Women Scale of 1972. Multiple regression analysis indicated main effects for gender, year in school, and condition on nonsexist language use. Participants with nonsexist instructions used significantly more nonsexist language than the other two groups. No significant difference was found among the three groups on the use of sexist language. Freshpersons were more likely to use nonsexist language than seniors. Females used more nonsexist language than males.

Lakoff (1973) has suggested that sexism in our society is often reflected in our language. In recent years, the subject of sexist language and its poten- tial impact on society's attitudes and behaviors have been studied by many

1The authors wish to express their appreciation to the editor and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

2To whom correspondence should be sent at present addressed: School of Psychology, Flinders University of South Australia, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide 5001, Australia.

819

0360-0025/95/1200-0819507.50/0 1995 Plenum Publishing Corporation

820 Cronin and Jreisat

researchers (Bartholomew & Schnorr, 1994; Blaubergs, 1978; Blaubergs, 1980; Jacobson & Insko, 1985; Moulton, Robinson & Elias, 1978; Hale, Nevels, Lott & Titus, 1990; Dayhoff, 1983; Briere & Lanktree, 1983).

Language has been defined as sexist when it stereotypes by sex-role (Pepitone-Arreola-Rockwell, 1981) and is not related to inherent biological differences. Persing has suggested that sexist language can be defined as "any verbal or nonverbal act that precasts either female or male into roles on the basis of sex alone. Conversely, then, nonsexist language communication is any verbal or nonverbal act that does not precast either male or female into roles on the basis of sex alone" (Persing, 1978, p. 1). However, these definitions do not encompass the use of the generic "he" with a sex- role neutral subject. Research indicates that the generic "he" evokes a dis- proportionate number of male images (Gastil, 1990) and is not very effective in serving its generic function (Martyna, 1978; Moulton, Robinson & Elias, 1978; Hyde, 1984; McConnell-Ginet, 1984; Murdock & Forsyth, 1985).

In the current study, sexist language is defined as the use of a gender specific pronoun (e.g. he) to refer to both sexes, or when the masculine or feminine pronoun is used exclusively to define roles by gender (Ameri- can Psychological Association, 1994).

Studies indicate that sexist language use is influenced by a number of factors including biological gender (Martyna, 1978; Rubin & Greene, 1991; Rubin, Greene & Schneider, 1994), attitudes towards women (Jacobson & Insko, 1985; Matheson & Kristiansen, 1987; Frable, 1989) and situational characteristics (Rubin, Greene & Schneider, 1994; Matheson & Kristiansen, 1987) such as oral versus written language use (Martyna, 1978; McMinn, Lindsay, Hannum & Troyer, 1990). Recently, the development of methods to teach nonsexist language to college students (McMinn, et al., 1991; McMinn & Foster, 1991) has followed the institution of editorial polices against sexist language use (Else & Sanford, 1987; American Psychological Association, 1977).

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which suggests that the language we use may reflect and/or shape our thoughts (Carroll, 1956), has encouraged studies examining whether sexism in language indicates sexism in attitudes (McConnell-Ginet, 1984; Chaika, 1984; Hamilton, 1988). Applying this hypothesis to sexist words and phrases in the English language, Blaubergs (1980) points out that, no matter what its origins may be, "Sexist language by its existence reinforces and socializes sexist thinking and practices" (p. 137). Although sexist language use has been shown to be related to attitudes towards women (Jacobson & Insko, 1985; Matheson & Kristiansen, 1987; Frable, 1989), suggesting that attitudes shape language (McConnell- Oinet, 1984), similar research also demonstrates that sexist language per-

Nonsexist Language Use 821

petuates sexist attitudes (Hyde, 1984; Chaika, 1984; Briere & Lanktree, 1983; Brooks, 1983; Dayhoff, 1983; Pepitone-Arreola-Rockwell, 1981). These studies demonstrate that sexist language use has behavioral and at- titudinal implications (Martyna, 1980) and support the demand for nonsexist language use (Briere & Lanktree, 1983; Else & Sanford, 1987; Murdock & Forsyth, 1985).

With the evidence indicating the need for nonsexist language use, researchers have examined ways to eliminate sexist language (Martyna, 1980; Pepitone-Arreola-Rockwell, 1981; Blaubergs, 1978) and the possible implications such a change would have on behavior (Bendix, 1979). Recently, McMinn and colleagues have reported on the effectiveness of a computer program (McMinn & Foster, 1991) and didactic presentation (McMinn Troyer, Hannum & Foster, 1991) for teaching nonsexist language use to college students. Results suggest a small decrease in the use of sexist language but indicate the difficulty of changing university students' use of sexist language.

However, part of the difficulty in explicitly teaching nonsexist language use may be due to a resistance to change (Martyna, 1980; Blaubergs, 1978; Rubin & Greene, 1991; McMinn et al., 1991; Rubin, Greene & Schneider, 1994). Support for this argument comes from research indicating situational influences on the use of nonsexist language (Rubin, Greene & Schneider, 1994; Matheson & Kristiansen, 1987). Rubin and Greene (1991) report that interviewer gender effects the use of gender-inclusive language. Female interviewers elicit more negative attitudes toward sexist language than male interviewers. Males report the lowest usage of nonsexist language when in- terviewed by males.

If students are resistant to use nonsexist language after explicit instruc- tion, it may be more productive to simply model nonsexist language use. Longitudinal microanalysis has demonstrated that modeling is an important vehicle of language acquisition (Moerk & Moerk, 1979) and typically occurs without reward (Brown & Hanlon, 1970). Modeling, or observational learning, may be defined as "learning achieved not by practice or by direct ex- perience on the learner's part of the consequences of performing a particular action, but solely by observation of another agent" (Harre & Lamb, 1983, p. 294). Bandura summarizes the literature on the effects of modeling on language acquisition stating that modeling "..is a highly effective way of promoting language acquisition" (Bandura, 1986, p. 508).

Although much of the modeling literature regarding language acquisition concerns verbal language skills, it is reasonable to assume that written language skills may also be modelled. McMinn et al. (1990) found that college students who used sexist language in oral form were also more likely than others to use sexist language in written form. Additionally, resistance

~'.iLL~RSVILLE UN:VE~IX~


to use nonsexist language may be lowered by use of anonymous questionnaires as opposed to oral presentation.

McMinn et al. (1990) developed an unobtrusive method for measuring students' sexist language use. Students were asked to respond to questions such as: 'A business executive discovers a long-time employee has been stealing from the company. What should the executive do first?" (McMinn et al., 1990, p. 391). Participants were not told the purpose of the study and their responses were rated by two experimenters for sexist pronoun use (McMinn et al., 1991). Dichotomous scoring was used by McMinn et al. (1991) because they did not want to assume that the number of times sexist language was used directly corresponded to sexism. For example, if a person used four sexist pronouns in one sentence, this would not neces- sarily mean that he/she should be considered four times as sexist as some- one who only used one sexist pronoun.

The acquisition of nonsexist language use can be conceptualized as a gradual process characterised by the use of both sexist and nonsexist language. Therefore, the assessment of nonsexist language along with sexist language use would provide additional information regarding nonsexist language use acquisition.

The present study expanded on McMinn et al.'s (1990) scoring procedure by assessing both sexist and nonsexist language use. The procedure uses questions which involve ethical dilemmas concerning protagonists with traditionally male (i.e. "business executive"), female (i.e. "nurse"), or neutral (i.e. "professor") roles to assess the amount of sexist language in participants' responses. Additionally, in the instructions, students received either nonsexist language examples, sexist language examples, or no example. It was hypothesized that students in the nonsexist examples group would use more nonsexist language and less sexist language than participants in the other two groups. In addition to rating the amount of sexist language a person used, his/her use of nonsexist language was also measured.

Previous research indicates that sexist language use is influenced by attitudes towards women (Jacobson & Insko, 1985; Matheson & Kristiansen, 1987; Frable, 1989). The current study measured students' attitudes toward women using the shortened version of Spence and Helmreich's Attitudes Toward Women Scale (ATW; 1972). Students with more liberal attitudes toward women as measured by the ATW were predicted to use more nonsexist language than students with more traditional attitudes toward women.

Research also suggests that sex-typed men are more likely to endorse sexist language (Frable, 1989). The shortened version of Spence and Helm- reich's Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ; 1978) was used to examine the relationship of a person's use of expressive or instrumental behaviors to his/her use of sexist language. Spence and Helmreich (1978) report on


a series of studies demonstrating the validity of the PAQ as a measure of masculine instrumental qualities and feminine expressive qualities in a va- riety of populations including college and high school students, college students' parents, homosexual adults and military personnel. Scores on the PAQ measure of masculine instrumental qualities were predicted to corre- late with sexist language use but not nonsexist language use.

METHOD

Participants

Eighty-four female and 60 male high school students participated. Sev- enty-seven percent of the participants were white, 20% were African-Ameri- can and 3% checked "other." The students ranged in age from 14 to 19 years old with a mean age of 15.7 and a standard deviation of 1.55. Forty-five participants (30 females, 15 males) were randomly assigned to the control group, 51 (26 females, 25 males) to the nonsexist examples group, and 48 (28 females, 20 males) to the sexist examples group. Gender ratio differences among groups were not statistically significant. Assuming a medium effect size (r = .30; Cohen & Cohen, 1983) with n = 144, power of detecting a significant experimental effect is .95 at the .05 level of significance.

Instruments

The Sexist Language Detector (SLD) is a 24-item questionnaire in- volving ethical dilemmas, similar to the format developed by McMinn et al. (1990). Results from pretesting on 43 undergraduate students were used to designate the protagonist's occupation in each sentence as either male- related, female-related, or neutral.

In each of the 24 SLD questions, no reference to a specific gender for the protagonist or other participants was indicated. On each item, an individual could receive a score of 0 or 1 for sexist language use and 0 or 1 for nonsexist language use. A response was scored as sexist (1) if a pref- erence for a particular gender was shown through the use of gender-specific nouns ("man", "woman", "guy", "lady", etc.) or pronouns ("he", "she", "him", "her", "himself', "herself', etc.). If no sexist language was used, a person received a score of 0 for that item. Similarly, regarding nonsexist language use, a person received a score of 1 when using pronouns such as "he/she", "him/her", "they", etc. or nonsexist nouns such as "person", "individual", etc. If none of these nouns or pronouns were specifically em-


ployed in an answer, then a score of 0 on nonsexist language use was given for that particular response. To control for verbosity, a participant could only receive a score of 0 or 1 on each item no matter how much sexist or nonsexist language he/she used per item. Thus, each participant received a total sexist language score and a total nonsexist language score with 24 being the highest possible score for each measure. No participants used "anti-sexist" language, defined as a challenge to sexist language using feminine generics or reversing sex roles (e.g., "man" for a hypothetical nurse). The clear coding procedure (i.e. presence or absence of gender specific pronouns, presence or absence of gender neutral nouns or "he~she" con- ventions) resulted in 100% agreement between two independent coders.

Personality characteristics which were predicted to relate to the use of sexist and nonsexist language were assessed by the PAQ and the ATW. The PAQ consists of 24 abstract trait dimensions or "descriptions of dis- positional properties that make reference to overt behavior or to the situ- ations in which these dispositions are manifested" (Spence & Helmreich, 1978, p. 150). Items are assigned to three scales: Masculinity (M), Femi- ninity (F), and Masculinity-Femininity (M-F) with each scale scored sepa- rately. The PAQ M scale measures a person's self-assertive, independent attributes whereas the PAQ F scale measures interpersonally-oriented, expressive qualities (Spence & Helmreich, 1980). The PAQ M-F scale measures items whose social desirability varies within the genders and thus does not examine attributes as gender-specific as those in the PAQ M and the PAQ F scales (Spenee & Helmreich, 1978). Cronbach alphas for a sample of students given the short form are .85, .82, and .78 for M, F, and M-F respectively (Spence & Helmreich, 1978). Cronbach alphas for the current sample of students were .80, .78, and .74 for M, F, and M-F respectively.

The ATW assesses "attitudes toward male superiority, equality of op- portunity, and social and sexual relations between women and men" (Weitzman, Birns, & Friend, 1985, p. 895). High scores reflect nontraditional and more liberal attitudes toward women's roles; low scores indicate more traditional attitudes toward women's roles. The Cronbach alpha of the fifteen-item form has been found to be .89 in a college sample (Spence & Helmreich, 1978). Cronbach alpha for the ATW for the current student sample was .79.

Procedure

Participants provided basic demographic information (gender, race, age, grade in school, religion, etc.) and then completed the SLD, and shortened versions of the PAQ and ATV Participants were instructed to use


their "first impulse" and not to deliberate on the SLD answers. This was to encourage participants to focus on the ethical dilemma and help prevent subjects from identifying the study's hypothesis. They were told to answer each of questions on the SLD with 2 complete sentences or less and that these questions assessed their "problem-solving skills and ability to handle ethical dilemmas." In addition, participants were told that "there are no right or wrong answers on this test." These instructions were designed to elicit spontaneous, private language use as opposed to more conscious, linguistic habits. The effect of implicit modeling is assumed to have a stronger influence on spontaneous language use as compared to a public presentation, which may be influenced by other social factors.

Participants were randomly divided into three groups with each group receiving a different set of instructions on the SLD. Instructions included either two examples using sexist language, two examples using nonsexist language (modeling condition), or no examples (control).

RESULTS

Results were analysed by conducting two, three-step multiple regres- sions examining the effects of demographics (year in school and gender), group manipulation and personality measures (ATW and PAQ scales) on sexist language and nonsexist language use. Year in school, gender and group manipulation were coded as dummy variables (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Basic demographics of year in school and gender were entered on the first step. Group manipulation was entered on step two and the ATW and PAQ scales were entered on step three.

There was a significant main effect for year in school accounting for five percent of the variance in nonsexist language use. Freshpersons used significantly more nonsexist language (rn = 6.1, sd = 5.6) than seniors (rn = 3.0, sd = 3.2, t(142) = 3.67, p < .001). There was also a significant main effect for gender, accounting for five percent of the variance in nonsexist language use. Females used significantly more nonsexist language (m = 6.0, sd = 5.0) than males (rn = 3.5, sd = 4.7, t(142) = -3.0, p < .01). There was a significant main effect for group, uniquely accounting for 10 percent of the variance in nonsexist language use. Multiple R, R 2 change and significance of R 2 change for the multiple regression equations predicting nonsexist language use are reported in Table I. There were no significant interaction effects regarding group, gender or year in school for nonsexist language use. There were no significant effects for the dependent measure, sexist language use.


Table I. Summary of Multiple Regression Equations Predicting Nonsexist Language Use

Significance of Predictor a Multiple R R 2 Change R 2 Change

A: Gender .241 .058 .01 Year .334 .053 .01

B: Condition .449 .090 .001 C: ATW

PAQ Male .481 .029 .277 PAO Female PAO Male/Female

aA: F(2,141) = 8.9, p < .001. B: F(2,138) = 8.8, p < .001. C: F(8,135) = 5.09, p < .001.

Paired differences t-test showed significant differences between sexist and nonsexist language use for students in the control group (m = 7.9, sd = 4.7 vs. m = 3.5, sd = 3.4, t(44) = -4.3, p < .001) and students in the sexist examples group (rn = 8.9, sd = 5.8 vs. m = 4.4, sd = 4.5, t(47) = -4.2, p < .001). Measures of sexist language use (m = 7.4, sd = 5.5) and nonsexist language use (m = 6.7, sd = 6.1) for the modeling group did not differ significantly, suggesting that modeling served to increase the amount of nonsexist language use. Mean scores for sexist and nonsexist language use by group, gender and year in school are reported in Tables II-IV, respectively.

There was a small, negative correlation between scores on the ATW and the use of sexist language (r = -.16, p < .05). No significant correla- tions were found among scores on the PAQ scales and the use of sexist or nonsexist language.

Table II. Means and (Standard Deviations) for Sexist and Nonsexist Language Use by Group a

Group

No Examples Sexist Nonsexist (Control)/' Examples c Examples

Sexist 7.9 8.9 7.5 language (4.7) (5.8) (5.5)

Nonsexist 3.5 4.4 6.8 language (3.4) (4.5) (6.2)

aN = 45, Control; 51, Nonsexist; 48, Sexist. bSexist vs. Nonsexist language: t(44) = -4.3, p < .001. cSexist vs. Nonsexist language: t(47) = --4.2, p < .001.


Table III. Means and (Standard Deviations) for Sexist and Nonsexist

Language Use by Gender a

Females Males Sexist 7.7 8.6

language (4.9) (5.9) Nonsexist 6.0 3.5

language b (5.0) (4.7)

aN = 84, Females; 60, Males. bt(142) = 3.0, p < .01.

DISCUSSION

Results from this study suggest that modeling has a significant effect on a person's use of nonsexist language. Participants in the nonsexist examples group scored the highest on nonsexist language use, indicating that modeling had a powerful impact. These results support the use of nonsexist language in written communication.

Year in school and gender were also related to the use of nonsexist language. Females used significantly more nonsexist language than males. The issue of nonsexist language use is more salient for females since sexist language excludes females more so than males. Martyna (1978) suggested that "women may be using more alternatives to the generic masculine than are men, because these terms encourage a more human or sex-inclusive imagery than that enabled by use of generic 'he ' " (p. 137). Other research has shown that males tend to have more male-biased imagery than females (Hamilton & Henley, 1982; Hamilton, 1988).

Freshpersons used more nonsexist language than seniors. There were no other differences between seniors and freshpersons to account for this

Table IV. Means and (Standard Deviations) for Sexist and Nonsexist Language Use by Year in School a

Freshpersons Seniors

Sexist 8.6 7.2 language (5.2) (5.5)

Nonsexist 6.1 3.0 language b (5.6) (3.2)

aN = 90, Freshpersons; 54, Seniors. bt(142) = 3.67, p < .001.


unexpected finding. It is possible that freshpersons, having been exposed to this issue at an earlier age than the seniors, tend to use nonsexist language more frequently. This result should be replicated on a larger and more diverse population.

No differences were found on the sexist language measure. Sexist language use was higher than nonsexist language use in all three conditions. Modeling nonsexist language did not appear to have a mitigating effect on the use of sexist language. This suggests that not only do we need to model nonsexist language, but we should also specifically discourage the use of sexist language. This interpretation is consistent with the lack of correlation between sexist and nonsexist language use among males.

The personality measures (PAQ and ATW) did not contribute to the prediction of sexist or nonsexist language use. Although the ATW demonstrated a weak, negative correlation with sexist language use it did not account for a significant proportion of the variance when entered into the regression model. The correlation is consistent with previous studies show- ing a relationship between the ATW and sexist language use (Jaeobson & Insko, 1985; Matheson & Kristiansen, 1987; Frable, 1989). However, the current results question the significance of this relationship.

This study assessed both sexist and nonsexist language use. Indeed, if only sexist language use had been assessed, the main effect for group would have been missed. Programs which teach nonsexist language use may increase nonsexist use without decreasing the amount of sexist language use. The fact that males use less nonsexist language may be due to the often noted resistance to change (Martyna, 1980; Blaubergs, 1978; Rubin & Greene, 1991; McMinn et al., 1991; Rubin, Greene & Schneider, 1994). Thus, strategies to teach nonsexist language use may need to differ for males and females.

The current study examined the effects of modeling written language within the classroom. The next logical step is to examine the effects of verbal modeling of nonsexist language on individuals' language usage. Al- though some researchers have used both oral and written language (Mar- tyna, 1978; McMinn et al., 1991) to look at specific language use, no studies have examined the effect of modeling nonsexist language orally. It would also be beneficial to determine how long the effects of modeling last using a follow-up study. Finally, ways to decrease the use of sexist language should be explored.

The present findings suggest that modeling has an impact on a high school students' use of nonsexist language. Nonsexist language use by role models in the classroom, and in written material may encourage students to adopt nonsexist language usage. However, efforts also need to focus on eliminating sexist language use. The preponderance of evidence indicates


that sexist language use has both behavioral and cognitive implications, such as potentially limiting perceived occupational and professional oppor- tunities (Briere & Lanktree, 1983; Dayhoff, 1983) and affecting gender-role development (Hyde, 1984).

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association. (1977, June). Guidelines for nonsexist language in APA journals. Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychological Association. (1994). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice-Hall.

Bartholomew, C. G., & Schnorr, D. L. (1994). Gender equity: Suggestions for broadening career options of female students. School Counselor, 41, 245-255.

Bendix, E. H. (1979). Linguistic models as political symbols: Gender and the generic "he" in English. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 327, 23-39.

Blaubergs, M. (1978). Changing the sexist language: The theory behind the practice. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2, 244-261.

Blaubergs, M. (1980). An analysis of classical arguments against changing sexist language. In C. Kramarae (Ed.), The voice of women and men. New York: Pergamon Press.

Briere, J., & Lanktree, C. (1983). Sex-role related effects of sex bias in language. Sex Roles, 9, 625-632.

Brooks, L. (1983). Sexist language in occupational information: Does it make a difference? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 227-232.

Brown, R., & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.

Carrol, J. B. (Ed.). (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorl. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chaika, E. (1984). The force of linguistic structures on cultural values: Some distinctions, as exemplified by the "Big Dan" rape case. Interfaces Linguistics Psychology and Health Therapeutics, 11, 68-74.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression~correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. (2nd ed.) NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dayhoff, S. A. (1983). Sexist language and person perception: Evaluation of candidates from newspaper articles. Sex Roles, 9, 527-539.

Else, J. E, & Sanford, M. J. (1987). Nonsexist language in social work journals: Not a trivial pursuit. Social Work, 32, 52-59.

Frable, D. E. (1989). Sex typing and gender ideology: Two facets of the individual's gender psychology that go together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 95-108.

Gastil, J. (1990). Generic pronouns and sexist language: The oxymoronic character of masculine generics. Sex Roles, 23, 629-643.

Hale, R., Nevels, R. M., Lott, C., & Titus, T. (1990). Cultural insensitivity to sexist language toward men. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 697-698.

Hamilton, M. (1988). Using masculine generics: Does generic 'he' increase male bias in the user's imagery? Sex Roles, 19, 785-799.

Harre, R., & Lamb, R. (Eds.). (1983). The encyclopedic dictionary of psychology. Cambridge, MA: The MTS Press.

Hyde, J. S. (1984). Children's understanding of sexist language. Developmental Psychology, 20, 697-706.

Jacobson, M. B., & Insko, W. R. Jr. (1985). Use of nonsexist pronouns as a function of one's feminist orientation. Sex Roles, 13, 1-7.


Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman's place. Language in Society, 1, 45-80. Martyna, W. (1978). What does "he" mean? Use of the generic masculine. Journal of

Communication, 28, 131-149. Martyna, W. (1980). Beyond the "he/man" approach: The case for nonsexist language. Signs,

5, 482-493. Matheson, K., & Kristiansen, C. M. (1987). The effect of sexist attitudes and social structure

on the use of sex-biased pronouns. Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 395-398. McConnnell-Ginet, S. (1984). The origins of sexist language in discourse. Annals of the New

York Academy of Sciences, 433, 123-135. MeMinn, M. R., & Foster, J. D. (1991). A computer program to reach nonsexist language.

Teaching of Psychology, 18, 115-117. MeMinn, M. R., Lindsay, S. E, Hannum, L. E., & Troyer, P. K. (1990). Does sexist language

reflect personal characteristics? Sex Roles, 23, 389-396. McMinn, M. R., Troyer, P. K., Hannum, L. E., & Foster, J. D. (1991). Teaching nonsexist

language to college students, Journal of Experimental Education, 59, 153-161. Moerk, E. L., & Moerk, C. (1979). Quotations, imitations, and generalizations. Factual and

methodological analyses. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 2, 43-72. Moulton, J., Robinson, G. M., & Elias, C. (1978). Sex bias in language use: "Neutral" pronouns

that aren't. American Psychologist, 33, 1032-1036. Murdock, N. L. & Forsyth, D. R. (1985). Is gender-biased language sexist? A perceptual

approach. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 39-49. Pepitone-Arreola-Rockwell, E (1981). Delusions of gender language. Psychotherapy Theory,

Research, and Practice, 18, 147-149. Persing, B. S. (1978). The nonsexist communication: An action guide to eradicating sexism in

language. New York: Communication Dynamics Press. Rubin, D. L., & Greene, K. L. (1991). Effects of biological and psychological gender, age

cohort, and interviewer gender on attitudes toward gender-inclusive language. SexRoles, 24, 391-412.

Rubin, D. L., Greene, K., & Schneider, D. (1994). Adopting gender-inclusive language reforms: Diachronie and synchronic variation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13, 91-114.

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. (1972). The Attitudes Toward Women Scale: An objective instrument to measure attitudes toward the rights and roles of women in contemporary society. JSAS Catalogue of Selected Documents in Psychology, 2, 66.

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. (1980). Masculine instrumentality and feminine expressiveness: Their relationships with sex role attitudes and behaviors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 147-163.

Weitzman, N., Birns, B., & Friend, R. (1985). Traditional and nontraditional mothers' communication with their daughters and sons. Child Development, 56, 894-898.