Journal of Vocational Behavior 23, 227-232 (1983)

Sexist Language in Occupational Information: Does It Make a Difference?

LINDA BROOKS

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

While several guidelines for avoiding sexist language in career materials have been published, little empirical evidence exists to support the assumption that sexist language in career information has deleterious effects on clients. The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of sex-biased language in oc- cupational information on subject interest and attitudes regarding gender appro- priateness of occupations. Eighth-grade students read occupational briefs on two occupations presented in either neutral, female-biased, or male-biased language. Results showed a nonsignificant language effect and a significant sex difference in interest in the occupations. A significant three-way interaction (language by subject sex by occupation) was found for gender-appropriateness ratings. The findings, together with previous research, suggest that language may have little impact on specific occupational interests, but may affect other career attitudes related to interests.

Guidelines for eliminating sex bias in career materials (National Institute of Education, 1975; National Vocational Guidance Association, 1980) seem to presume that sexist language affects clients’ career interests and attitudes, thus limiting consideration of options to those that are traditional for one’s sex. While research has documented the presence of sex bias in career information (Birk, Tanney, & Cooper, 1979; Heskusius-Gildsdorf & Gildsdorf, 1975; Lauver, Gastellum, & Sheehey, 1975; Vetter, Stock- berger, & Brose, 1974; Women on Words and Images, 1975), empirical evidence on the effects of sex-biased language is sparse.

In one of the few available studies, Yanico (1978) assessed the effects of neutral and sex-biased language in occupational information on gender appropriateness ratings of sex-stereotyped occupations. Treatment con- sisted of subjects reading occupational briefs that were nonbiased or sex biased. Subjects then rerated the gender appropriateness of the careers. While the results were mixed, Yanico concluded that “exposing college students to different types of occupational information does have at least

The author expresses appreciation to Janice M. Birk for her helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

227

OOOl-8791/83 $3.00 Copyright Q 1983 by Academic Press, Inc.

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

228 LINDA BROOKS

some minimal impact on their attitudes about the sex appropriateness of occupations” (1978, p. 33). Since Yanico used sex-typed occupations, the effects of language were confounded by subjects’ preconceived attitudes concerning sex appropriateness of the occupations. To more “purely” assess the effects of sex-biased language on clients, neutral occupations (i.e., perceived as appropriate for either sex) should be used.

The purpose of this study was to explore the effects on subjects’ attitudes of sex-biased language in occupational information briefs de- scribing neutral occupations. Dependent variables were student ratings of (a) gender appropriateness of the occupations and (b) interest in the occupation. Independent variables were language (i.e., female biased, male biased, neutral), occupation (Medical Technologist, Occupational Therapist), and sex of subject.

METHOD

Subjects

Subjects were students in the eighth grade of a single school district in a primarily middle-class community in the southeast. The original sample included 200 students. Sixteen students were dropped from the analysis for failure to demonstrate adequate comprehension of the oc- cupational briefs (see Procedures). The final sample consisted of 97 females and 87 males. An additional eighth-grade social studies class of 24 students from another school district participated in a pilot test.

Treatment Materials

To select “neutral” occupations, a questionnaire listing 16 job titles was administered to the social studies class. Students indicated if they thought each job was more likely to be held by a woman, a man, or either sex. Job titles presented were determined by considering a com- bination of the following criteria: (a) jobs rated as “neutral” in previous research (Basow & Howe, 1979; Plost & Rosen, 1974; Shinar, 1975; Yanico, 1978), (b) jobs with educational requirements not exceeding 4 years of college, and (c) jobs that could be expected to be relatively unfamiliar to the subjects. Occupations selected for the study-Medical Technologist and Occupational Therapist-were those that a high pro- portion of the students (70-80%) indicated that either both men and women worked in these jobs or they were uncertain if men or women were more likely to hold the job.

Treatment

Occupational briefs of 1.5 to 2 typed pages were prepared on the two occupations using information from the Occupational Outlook Handbook (1980). Readability level of the briefs was approximately fifth grade, as determined by Fry’s Readability Graph (Fry, 1977).

SEXIST LANGUAGE 229

In the neutral condition, the language of the description avoided sex- linked pronouns, using instead plural (e.g., they) third-person pronouns. In the female-biased condition, female pronouns were used throughout and workers in the field were referred to as women. In the male-biased condition, male pronouns were used and workers were referred to as men.

Dependent Measures

The gender appropriateness measure was a Spoint Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (suitable for women) to 5 (suitable for men). To prevent student awareness of the study’s purpose, the gender appropriateness rating was embedded in an g-item scale which included such distracters as high versus low status, high versus low pay.

To measure interest in the occupation, a Spoint Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very uninterested) to 5 (very interested) was constructed. As a check on familiarity with the occupations, students responded either “Yes” or “No” to the question, “Have you heard about this occupation before today?” Additionally, they were asked if they knew anyone em- ployed in the occupation and if so whether the person was male or female.

Procedure

Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the information treatment groups (neutral, female biased, male biased) and one of the occupations (Medical Technologist, Occupational Therapist) resulting in 12 experimental groups (3 information groups by 2 occupations by 2 sexes). A research packet containing an instructional cover sheet, the occupational brief, the rating scales, and a four-item questionnaire used to check for attention to the task was distributed to each subject. The questionnaire asked students to recall four simple information items about the occupation (e.g., “What is the name of the occupation you just read about?” “Where does this person usually work?“). Students who failed to correctly answer three of the four questions were dropped from the analysis.

RESULTS

A three-way analysis of variance of interest ratings showed no significant main effects for language or for occupation. Additionally, none of the interaction effects was significant. Main effects for sex, however, were significant (F(1, 172) = 3.98, p < .Ol), with females (M = 3.22) expressing higher interest in the occupations than males (M = 2.70).

Cell means for gender-appropriateness ratings appear in Table 1. The results of the ANOVA showed that main effects for language, occupation, and the two-way interactions were not significant. Significant effects were found for subject sex (F(1, 172) = 7.36, p < .Ol) and for the language by sex by occupation interaction (F(2, 172) = 4.83, p < .Ol). Because

230 LINDA BROOKS

TABLE 1 Means for Gender-Appropriateness Ratings of Occupations by Sex and Language”

Sex

Medical technologist Occupational therapist

Female Male Female Male biased biased Neutral biased biased Neutral

Female 2.74 2.69 2.65 2.39 2.93 2.87 (19Y (13) (17) (18) (15) (15)

Male 2.60 3.29 3.15 3.20 3.08 2.79 (15) (17) (13) (15) (13) (14)

” Scale values ranged from 1 (suitable for women) to 5 (suitable for men). b Numbers in parentheses indicate number of subiects.

the three-way interaction was significant, simple interaction effects were examined (Kirk, 1968). Results showed that in the female-biased langauge condition, Occupational Therapist was rated significantly lower (feminine typed) by female subjects (M = 2.39) than male subjects (M = 3.20).

Answers to the question concerning familiarity with the occupations and whether or not subjects knew someone employed in the ogcupation were analyzed using chi square. Seventy-three of the 97 (75%) female and 52 of the 87 (59%) male subjects answered “Yes” to the question, “Have you heard about this occupation before today?” Results were significant (x*(l) = 4.36, p < .05), indicating that a greater proportion of female than male subjects had heard of the occupation before the data collection period. Chi square analysis of the “know someone” data failed to reach significance (x*(l) = 2.60, p < .lO).

DISCUSSION

The main results of this study were a nonsignificant language effect on subject interest in occupations and a significant three-way interaction (language x subject sex x occupation) effect on gender-appropriateness ratings. These results should be interpreted cautiously, however, due to the significant sex difference in interest in the occupations. One possible explanation for the higher female interest is that the occupations may not have been neutral for this sample of female subjects. This explanation seems plausible since more females (75%) than males (59%) indicated prior knowledge of the occupations-a knowledge that possibly included an awareness that the occupations are female dominated in the work force. In spite of this possible limitation, the overall findings are similar to those of a recent study by Stericker (1981) (available after the present study was completed).

Stericker exposed subjects to information on two neutral occupations (Child Psychologist and High School Teacher), as well as two masculine- typed (Corporation Lawyer and Taxi Driver) and two feminine-typed

SEXIST LANGUAGE 231

(Interior Designer and Clerk Typist) occupations. Information was pre- sented in one of three language formats: “he,” “he or she,” or “they.” Subjects rated both their interest in the specific career and their interest in a related job in the same field. Subjects also estimated the ease or difficulty of obtaining each job for six different categories of people (e.g., Man, Black Person, Mexican-American Person). Nonsignificant results were found on all measures for the sex-typed careers. Some significant results were found, however, for the neutral careers. Interest in a job related to Child Psychologist was higher for females in the “he or she” than in the “he” or “they” condition. In addition, a job as a High School Teacher was viewed by female subjects as easier for a woman to obtain in the “he or she” than the “he” or “they” condition.

Thus, like the present study, Stericker (1981) found nonsignificant language effects on direct interest in neutral occupations. Language effects were also nonsignificant for interest in sex-typed careers. These results, taken together, suggest that language may have little direct impact on subject interest in specific occupations, especially if they are strongly sex typed. This interpretation gains further support from research by Boyd (1976) and Gottfredson (1976) showing female interest in masculine- typed occupations was not significantly affected when gender-neutral versus sex-biased occupational titles were used.

Concluding that language has IZO impact, however, may be premature. The present study, as well as that of Yanico (1978), found some effect for language in interaction with other variables on gender-appropriateness ratings. Stericker (1981) found a subject sex by language interaction effect on perceived difficulty of women obtaining a job as a High School Teacher. A study by Bern and Bern (1973) found that more subjects expressed an interest in applying for the other-sex jobs when advertisements were written in gender-neutral versus sex-biased terms. Thus, language may have impact, but only in interaction with other variables (e.g., subject sex, sex typing of career). In addition, while language may not directly affect specific occupational interests, it may have impact on other career related attitudes that do affect interests. Perhaps language influences job- seeking attitudes or perceptions regarding societal and/or employer’s acceptance of individuals pursuing nontraditional jobs. These conclusions must be considered tentative until further research cna clarify what possible variables may be affected by and interact with sexist language.

REFERENCES Basow, S. A., & Howe, K. G. Sex bias and career evaluation by college women. Perceptual

and Motor Skills, 1979, 49, 705-706. Bern, S. L., & Bern, D. L. Does sex-biased job advertising “aid and abet” sex discrimination?

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1973, 3, 6-18. Birk, J. M., Tanney, M. F., & Cooper, J. F. A case of blurred vision: Stereotyping in

career information illustrations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1979, 15, 247-W.

232 LINDA BROOKS

Boyd, V. S. Neutralizing sexist titles in Holland’s Self-Directed Search: What difference does it make? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1976, 9, 191-199.

Fry, E. Fry’s readability graph: Clarifications, validity, and extensions to Level 17. Journal of Reading, 1977, 21, 249.

Gottfredson, G. D. A note on sexist wording in interest measurement. Measuremenf and Evaluation in Guidance, 1976, 8, 221-223.

Heskusius-Gildsdorf, L. T., & Gildsdorf, D. L. Girls are females, boys are males: A content analysis of career materials. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1975, 54, 207-2 11.

Kirk, R. E. Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1968.

Lauver, P. J., Gastellum, R. M., & Sheehey, M. Bias in OOH illustrations? Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 1975, 23, 335-340.

National Institute of Education. Guidelines for assessment of sex bias and sex fairness in career interest inventories. In E. E. Diamond (Ed.), Issues of sex bias and sex fairness in career imerest measurement. Washington, DC.: National Institute of Education, 1975.

National Vocational Guidance Association. Guidelines for the preparation and evaluation of career information literature. Vocational Guidance Quarrerly, 1980, 28, 291-296.

Occupational Outlook Handbook. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 1980. Plost, M., & Rosen, M. J. Effects of sex of career models on occupational preferences

of adolescents. Audio Visual Communication Review, 1974, 22, 41-50. Shinar, E. H. Sexual stereotypes of occupations. Journal of Vocalional Behavior, 1975,

7, 99-111. Stericker, A. Does this “He or She” business really make a difference? The effect of

masculine pronouns as generics on job attitudes. Sex Roles, 1981, 7, 637-641. Vetter, L., Stockberger, D. W., & Brose, C. Career guidance material: Implications for

women’s career development. (Research and Development Series No. 97). Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio: Center for Vocational and Technical Education, 1974.

Women on Words and Images. Help wanted: Sexism in career education materials. New York: Educational Products Information Exchange, 1975.

Yanico, B. J. Sex bias in career information: Effects of language on attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1978, 13, 26-34.

Received: June 21, 1982.