Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:05:12.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Isolating stereotypical gender in a grammatical gender language: Evidence from eye movements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2014

CHIARA REALI ,
YULIA ESAULOVA  and
LISA VON STOCKHAUSEN
CHIARA REALI*
Affiliation:
University of Duisburg–Essen
YULIA ESAULOVA
Affiliation:
University of Duisburg–Essen
LISA VON STOCKHAUSEN
Affiliation:
University of Duisburg–Essen
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Chiara Reali, Department of Psychology, University of Duisburg–Essen, Berliner Platz 6–8, Essen 45127, Germany. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study investigates the effects of stereotypical gender during anaphor resolution in German. The study aims at isolating the effects of gender-stereotypical cues from the effects of grammatical gender. Experiment 1 employs descriptions of typically male, female, and neutral occupations that contain no grammatical cue to the referent gender, followed by a masculine or feminine role noun, in a reaction time priming paradigm. Experiment 2 uses eye-tracking methodology to examine how the gender typicality of these descriptions affects the resolution of a matching or mismatching anaphoric pronoun. Results show a mismatch effect manifest at very early stages of processing. Both experiments also reveal asymmetries in the processing of the two genders suggesting that the representation of female rather than male referents is more flexible in counterstereotypical contexts. No systematic relation is found between eye movements and individual gender attitude measures, whereas a reliable correlation is found with gender typicality ratings.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , July 2015 , pp. 977 - 1006
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bates, H., Devescovi, A., Hernandez, A., & Pizzamiglio, L. (1996). Gender priming in Italian. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 992–1004.Google Scholar
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364.Google Scholar
Boland, J. E. (2004). Linking eye movements to sentence comprehension in reading and listening. In Carreiras, M. & Clifton, C. Jr. (Eds.), The online study of sentence comprehension (pp. 51–76). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Breen, M., & Clifton, C. Jr. (2011). Stress matters: Effects of anticipated lexical stress on silent reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 153–170.Google Scholar
Bußmann, H., & Hellinger, M. (2003). German—Engendering female visibility in German. In Hellinger, M. & Bußmann, H. (Eds.), Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men (Vol. 3, pp. 141–174). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cacciari, C., Carreiras, M., & Barbolini Cionini, C. (1997). When words have two genders: Anaphor resolution for Italian functionally ambiguous words. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 517–532.Google Scholar
Cacciari, C., & Cubelli, R. (2003). The neuropsychology of grammatical gender: An introduction. Cortex, 39, 377–382.Google Scholar
Cacciari, C., & Padovani, R. (2007). Further evidence on gender stereotype priming in language: Semantic facilitation and inhibition on Italian role nouns. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 277–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carreiras, M., Garnham, A., Oakhill, J., & Cain, K. (1996). The use of stereotypical gender information in constructing a mental model: Evidence from English and Spanish. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 639–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 335–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, G. G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cubelli, R., Lotto, L., Paolieri, D., Girelli, M., & Job, R. (2005). Grammatical gender is selected in bare noun production: Evidence from the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 42–59.Google Scholar
Dieckman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2000) Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1171–1188.Google Scholar
Duden, Volume 4 (1995). Die Grammatik [Grammar]. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Duffy, S. A., & Keir, J. A. (2004). Violating stereotypes: Eye-movements and comprehension processes when text conflicts with world knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 32, 551–559.Google Scholar
Eckes, T., & Six-Materna, I. (1998). Leugnung von Diskriminierung: Eine Skala zur Erfassung des modernen Sexismus [Denial of discrimination: A scale measuring modern sexism]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 29, 224–238.Google Scholar
Eckes, T., & Six-Materna, I. (1999). Hostilität und Benevolenz: Eine Skala zur Erfassung des ambivalenten Sexismus [Hostility and benevolence: A scale for assessing ambivalent sexism]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 30, 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216.Google Scholar
Gygax, P., Gabriel, U., Sarrasin, O., Oakhill, J., & Garnham, A. (2008). Generically intended, but specifically interpreted: When beauticians, musicians, and mechanics are all men. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 464–485.Google Scholar
Hamilton, D. L., & Trolier, T. K. (1986). Stereotypes and stereotyping: An overview of the cognitive approach. In Gaertner, S. L. & Dovidio, J. F. (Eds), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (p. 133). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Heilman, M. E., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Gender stereotypes are alive, well, and busy producing workplace discrimination. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 393–398.Google Scholar
Hofmann, W., Gawronski, B., Gschwendner, T., Le, H., & Schmitt, M. (2005). Meta-analysis on the correlation between the implicit association test and explicit self-report measures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1369–1385.Google Scholar
International Labour Organization of the United Nations. (2000). Employment for detailed occupational groups by sex, Germany. Retrieved from http://laborsta.ilo.org Google Scholar
Irmen, L. (2007). What's in a (role) name? Formal and conceptual aspects of comprehending personal nouns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 36, 431–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irmen, L., Holt, D. V., & Weisbrod, M. (2010). Effects of role typicality on processing person information in German: Evidence from an ERP study. Brain Research, 1353, 133–144.Google Scholar
Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 498–509.Google Scholar
Kennison, S. M., & Trofe, J. L. (2003). Comprehending pronouns: A role for word-specific gender stereotype information. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32, 355–378.Google Scholar
Kreiner, H., Sturt, P., & Garrod, G. (2008). Processing definitional and stereotypical gender in reference resolution: Evidence from eye-movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 239–261.Google Scholar
Lattner, S., & Friederici, A. (2003). Talker's voice and gender stereotype in human auditory sentence processing—Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Neuroscience Letters, 339, 191–194.Google Scholar
Most, S. B., Verbeck Sorber, A., & Cunningham, J. G. (2005). Auditory Stroop reveals implicit gender associations in adults and children. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 287–294.Google Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Harvesting implicit group attitudes and beliefs from a demonstration web site. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Hansen, J. J., Devos, T., Lindner, N. M., Ranganath, K. A., et al. (2007). Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 36–88.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., Bersick, M., & McLaughlin, J. (1997). Brain potentials reflect violations of gender stereotypes. Memory & Cognition, 25, 273–285.Google Scholar
Pyykkönen, P., Hyönä, J., & van Gompel, R. P. G. (2010). Activating gender stereotypes during online spoken language processing: Evidence from visual world eye tracking. Experimental Psychology, 57, 126–133.Google Scholar
Rayner, K., Sereno, S. C., Morris, R. K., Schmauder, A. R., & Clifton, C. Jr. (1989). Eye movements and on-line language comprehension processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 121–149.Google Scholar
Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (1998). The role of scenario mapping in text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 26, 159–190.Google Scholar
Schneider-Düker, M., & Kohler, A. (1988). Assessment of sex roles: Results of a German version of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Diagnostica, 34, 256–270.Google Scholar
Stahlberg, D., Braun, F., Irmen, L., & Sczesny, S. (2007). Representation of the sexes in language. In Fiedler, K. (Ed.), Social communication: Frontiers of Social Psychology (pp. 163–187). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Sturt, P. (2003). The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 542–562.Google Scholar
Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199–214.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285–318.Google Scholar
Van Gompel, R. P. G., & Liversedge, S. P. (2003). The influence of morphological information on cataphoric pronoun assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 29, 128–139.Google Scholar