↓ Skip to main content

The Social Perception of Heroes and Murderers: Effects of Gender-Inclusive Language in Media Reports

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Social Perception of Heroes and Murderers: Effects of Gender-Inclusive Language in Media Reports
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00369
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karolina Hansen, Cindy Littwitz, Sabine Sczesny

Abstract

The way media depict women and men can reinforce or diminish gender stereotyping. Which part does language play in this context? Are roles perceived as more gender-balanced when feminine role nouns are used in addition to masculine ones? Research on gender-inclusive language shows that the use of feminine-masculine word pairs tends to increase the visibility of women in various social roles. For example, when speakers of German were asked to name their favorite "heroine or hero in a novel," they listed more female characters than when asked to name their favorite "hero in a novel." The research reported in this article examines how the use of gender-inclusive language in news reports affects readers' own usage of such forms as well as their mental representation of women and men in the respective roles. In the main experiment, German participants (N = 256) read short reports about heroes or murderers which contained either masculine generics or gender-inclusive forms (feminine-masculine word pairs). Gender-inclusive forms enhanced participants' own usage of gender-inclusive language and this resulted in more gender-balanced mental representations of these roles. Reading about "heroines and heroes" made participants assume a higher percentage of women among persons performing heroic acts than reading about "heroes" only, but there was no such effect for murderers. A post-test suggested that this might be due to a higher accessibility of female exemplars in the category heroes than in the category murderers. Importantly, the influence of gender-inclusive language on the perceived percentage of women in a role was mediated by speakers' own usage of inclusive forms. This suggests that people who encounter gender-inclusive forms and are given an opportunity to use them, use them more themselves and in turn have more gender-balanced mental representations of social roles.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 68 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Researcher 5 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 20 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 19%
Linguistics 12 17%
Social Sciences 9 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 20 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 December 2021.
All research outputs
#4,164,355
of 25,019,109 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#7,228
of 33,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,232
of 306,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#140
of 476 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,019,109 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,798 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 306,151 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 476 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.