Table 1.
Distribution of the number of participants classified into respective gender schemas across the meaningfulness, probability of use, and stereotypicality ratings in Polish and English (NPolish = 472; NEnglish = 470).
Fig 1.
Mean meaningfulness, probability of use, and stereotypicality ratings of Polish semantically correct and -incorrect as well as stereotypically congruent and -incongruent sentences (N = 472).
Table 2.
Mean meaningfulness, probability of use, and stereotypicality ratings (with 95% confidence intervals) of Polish semantically correct and incorrect as well as stereotypically congruent and incongruent sentences (N = 472).
Fig 2.
Mean meaningfulness, probability of use, and stereotypicality ratings of polish stereotypically congruent and incongruent sentences grouped by participants’ gender (NFemales = 240; NMales = 232).
Table 3.
Mean meaningfulness, probability of use, and stereotypicality ratings (with 95% confidence intervals) of Polish stereotypically congruent and incongruent sentences, grouped by participants’ gender (NFemales = 240; NMales = 232).
Fig 3.
Mean meaningfulness (A), probability of use (B), and stereotypicality (C) ratings of Polish semantically correct and incorrect as well as stereotypically congruent and incongruent sentences grouped by participants’ gender role identities (NSex-typed = 133; NCross-sex–typed = 114; NAndrogynous = 91; NUndifferentiated = 134).
Table 4.
Mean meaningfulness, probability of use, and stereotypicality ratings (with 95% confidence intervals) of Polish stereotypically congruent and incongruent sentences, grouped by participants’ gender role identities (NSex-typed = 133; NCross-sex–typed = 114; NAndrogynous = 91; NUndifferentiated = 134).
Fig 4.
Mean meaningfulness, probability of use, and stereotypicality ratings of English semantically correct and incorrect as well as stereotypically congruent and incongruent sentences (N = 470).
Table 5.
Mean meaningfulness, probability of use, and stereotypicality ratings (with 95% confidence intervals) of English semantically correct and incorrect as well as stereotypically congruent and incongruent sentences (N = 470).
Fig 5.
Mean meaningfulness, probability of use, and stereotypicality ratings of English stereotypically congruent and incongruent sentences grouped by participants’ gender (NFemales = 240; NMales = 230).
Table 6.
Mean meaningfulness, probability of use, and stereotypicality ratings (with 95% confidence intervals) of English stereotypically congruent and incongruent sentences, grouped by participants’ gender (NFemales = 240; NMales = 230).
Fig 6.
Mean meaningfulness, probability of use, and stereotypicality ratings of English semantically correct and incorrect as well as stereotypically congruent and incongruent sentences grouped by participants’ gender role identities (NSex-typed = 125; NCross-sex–typed = 82; NAndrogynous = 124; NUndifferentiated = 139).
Table 7.
Mean meaningfulness, probability of use, and stereotypicality ratings (with 95% confidence intervals) of English stereotypically congruent and incongruent sentences, grouped by participants’ gender schemas (NSex-typed = 125; NCross-sex–typed = 82; NAndrogynous = 124; NUndifferentiated = 139).
Fig 7.
Mean meaningfulness, probability of use, and stereotypicality ratings of semantically correct and incorrect as well as stereotypically congruent and incongruent sentences grouped by language (Polish vs. English) (NPolish = 472; NEnglish = 470).