Effects of inclusive vs. exclusive language on evaluations of the counselor

Sex Roles: A Journal of Research,  March, 1996  by Mark E. Johnson,  Seana Dowling-Guyer

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

Despite the fact that the American Psychological Association (APA, 1977) has long required authors to use feminine and masculine pronouns whenever referring to a generic individual, such unbiased language has not made its way into mainstream communication. In fact, most people still use the generic "he" or the generic "man" when referring to a generic individual. Such practices have been labeled exclusive language use, whereas the practice endorsed by APA of using "he or she" is referred to as inclusive language (Greene & Rubin, 1991).

The use of inclusive versus exclusive language has been associated in the research literature with a number of speaker characteristics, such as gender (Matheson & Kristiansen, 1987; Rubin & Greene, 1991), gender-role orientation (Greene & Rubin, 1991; Rubin & Greene, 1991), and attitudes toward equal rights for women and men (Greene & Rubin, 1991; Jacobsen & Insko, 1985). Individuals who have been identified as being more likely to use inclusive language are female (Jacobsen & Insko, 1985; Matheson & Kristiansen, 1987; Martyna, 1978), feminist in orientation (Jacobsen & Insko, 1985), and less traditional with regard to Christian beliefs (McMinn, Lindsay, Hannum, & Troyer, 1990). People who have endorsed more exclusive language use expressed stronger occupational gender-stereotypes and a less positive attitude toward nontraditional women (Matheson & Kristiansen, 1987).

Although it has been argued that the generic use of the masculine pronoun functions as a neutral pronoun and is easily identified as including males and females, this argument has not been supported by research findings. Instead, it has been found consistently that the use of the generic masculine pronoun evokes a male referent (Gastil, 1990; MacKay, 1980; Martyna, 1978; Moulton, Robinson, & Elias, 1978). In other words, people think of men, not men and women, when "he" is used to refer to an individual whose gender is not specified, even when it is supposed to be clear that members of either gender are being referred to. For example, Gastil (1990) asked participants to read sentences that contained either "he," "he/she," or "they" as the pronouns for generic individuals and subsequently to describe the images that arose. The use of "he" evoked the greatest number of male images, even though the sentences explicitly referred to people of either gender.

Other studies (Moulton et al., 1978; Sniezek & Jazwinski, 1986) have reported that the pronoun "he," used as a generic or neutral term, caused respondents to write more frequently about male characters. Moulton et al. (1978) asked participants to write about a fictional character using a theme sentence in which the pronoun, functioning as a neutral pronoun, was manipulated. Respondents who received the pronoun "he" in the theme sentence wrote significantly more often about a male character than those receiving the "she" or "he or she" pronouns. MacKay (1980) found that individuals miscomprehended the supposedly generic "he" in textbook paragraphs as referring to males exclusively 40% more often than did those who read the identical paragraphs containing unfamiliar neologisms, such as e, E, and tey.

Few researchers have assessed the effects of using inclusive versus exclusive language on evaluations of an individual. In one study, Greene and Rubin (1991) asked participants to evaluate preachers who used inclusive or exclusive language when delivering a sermon. They found that preachers using inclusive language were rated no differently than preachers using exclusive language. Given that counselors are generally expected to be sensitive and supportive, it has been speculated that the use of inclusive versus exclusive language may have an effect on the process and outcome of counseling (Wilcoxon, 1989). For example, frequent use of exclusive language via stereotyped gender pronouns could influence clients to avoid gathering more information about potential careers. Despite this speculation, no research has been conducted to address this issue empirically.

The current analogue study was designed to examine the effect of counselors' inclusive versus exclusive language use on participants' perceptions of the counselor and thus begin the exploration of the impact of this aspect of language on the counseling process. Because gender-role ideology was deemed a possible mediating factor in evaluations of counselor language style and gender preferences, it was included in this study.

METHOD

Participants

Participants were 88 female and 44 male undergraduate students enrolled in a Northwestern university who were offered extra credit for participation. Their ages ranged from 18 to 64 (M = 26.2, SD = 9.6). Of the participants, 80% were White, 6% African American, 4% Alaska Native, 2% Asian American, and 3% Hispanic. Their year in college was as follows: Freshman, 36%; Sophomore, 17%; Junior, 27%; Senior, 13%; and other, 7%.

Materials

Scenario.(2) Four versions of a brief counseling session transcript were developed in which a counselor and client discuss the results of an interest survey completed previously by the client. During the session, the counselor describes four different occupations in which the client may be interested, two traditionally female (receptionist and dental hygienist) and two traditionally male (postal carrier and electrical technician). The two transcript versions were identical except for the counselor's gender and the counselor's use of inclusive or exclusive language. Counselor gender was manipulated by providing a brief introduction to the transcript in which the counselor is described and named either Joanne or Joe Wagner. Counselor use of inclusive or exclusive language was manipulated by altering the pronouns that the counselor used to describe people in the four occupations. Specifically, the counselor used either exclusive language in which stereotyped pronouns consistent with the traditional gender identification of the job are used (e.g., describing all receptionists as "she" or all postal carriers as "he") or inclusive language in which people holding the four occupations are described using "she or he" and "he or she" regardless of the traditional gender identification.