The influence of the grammatical masculine form and GFL on the mental representation of gender

In most grammatical gender languages, employing the masculine form to refer to both women and men simultaneously is common practice. For example, the masculine form musiciens in French denotes either a group composed exclusively of men or a mixed group of women and men musicians. Notwithstanding a potential generic interpretation, extensive psycholinguistic research shows that this use of the masculine form prioritises the mental representation of men, resulting in a masculine bias [16,17]. The masculine form privileges the representation of a specific gender in the mental model because the surface form is strongly linked to the masculine gender, acting as a cognitive cue. Given the probabilistic tendency of the masculine form to refer specifically to men [18], the masculine-specific interpretation is favoured over a generic one.

Prioritising this specific interpretation is not without consequences, as considerable evidence suggests that gender-stereotypical language associating men with masculine words (e.g., competitive) can perpetuate the gender divide in certain occupations [19]. Similarly, using gender-exclusive language, where only one gendered form (e.g., he) is used to refer to both genders, has been shown to trigger ostracism among women, resulting in a lower sense of belonging, less motivation, and less expected identification for named professions [20]. Attempts to diminish this masculine bias have consequently led to the adoption of GFL practices that emphasise greater inclusivity. Specifically, GFL essentially employs two main strategies: neutralisation and feminisation [21]. Neutralisation seeks to eliminate gender references by using grammatically gender-neutral linguistic forms. These include epicene nouns, such as une_{Gr. feminine}/ un_{Gr. masculine} artiste (an artist), which share the same form, except for the article; collective nouns, such as le corps_{Gr. masculine} étudiant (the “studying body”, i.e., the student body), which refer to groups of individuals without specifying their gender; and generic nouns like un individu _{Gr. masculine} (an individual), which are grammatically gendered but can refer to any person regardless of gender. Feminisation, by contrast, aims to make women linguistically more visible by explicitly mentioning both the grammatically feminine and masculine forms, commonly achieved by using the pair form either in its complete (e.g., les étudiantes et étudiants [the women and men students]) or contracted (e.g., étudiant·e·s; étudiant(e)s) forms. Research has shown that both strategies are effective in attenuating the masculine bias [22–28]. In particular, studies examining the pair form in German [25,29] and French [22,27,30,31] have shown that it can facilitate the mental activation of women, increasing their estimated number in stereotypical occupations [14,22,28,29,32] among adults [14,22,28] and children [11,30].

Despite the reported advantages in cognitively heightening women’s visibility, the use of GFL remains somewhat contested. Beyond the political debates about the readability and practicality of its use [33], the impact of the pair form is not straightforward to interpret. Gender information activated by GFL can interact in intricate ways with gender stereotype information or with preconceptions that a given occupation is for a specific gender (e.g., assuming that nurse is a woman’s occupation). Research suggests that enhancing the visibility of women using the pair form has a greater influence on stereotypically masculine occupations (e.g., mechanics) than on stereotypically feminine occupations (e.g., nurses) [14]. For instance, studies in German [29] and French [14] have shown that when participants read texts about a professional gathering, using the pair form instead of the masculine form increased the estimated number of women perceived for masculine-stereotyped occupations, although this was not the case for feminine-stereotyped occupations [14,29]. Arguably, the pair form may heighten the presence of women more for stereotypically masculine than feminine occupations because, by default, feminine-stereotyped occupations are already strongly associated with women.

Insofar as gender stereotypes play a role in the social perception of occupations and interact complexly with language forms, this interplay is particularly relevant for adolescents who are in the process of developing their gender concepts and vocational representations.

Gender stereotypes and occupational gender representation

According to social role theory, gender stereotypes derive from observations of the distribution of women and men across social roles, including occupations [34,35], and play a central role in decisions related to adolescents’ vocational aspirations [36]. Yet researchers remain divided on the extent to which such stereotypes influence young individuals.

Some argue that girls and boys increasingly internalise gender roles and are confronted by pressure to conform to gender stereotypes during early adolescence [37,38]. In line with this idea, Gottfredson’s circumscription and compromise theory [36] posits that adolescents will evaluate the compatibility of their occupational interests with their self-concept to narrow down options deemed appropriate. As gender is one of the primary aspects of one’s self-concept [36], career choices that are judged inconsistent with one’s gender-role identity are essentially ruled out. As a result, notable differences in occupational perceptions emerge between girls and boys during this period, with each gender group showing less interest in occupations stereotypically associated with the other gender [39,40] and greater confidence in succeeding in occupations stereotypically congruent with their identity [12]. At the same time, others have suggested that adolescents, particularly girls, may develop greater gender flexibility [41], resisting pressures to conform to traditional stereotypes [42]. Despite this growing openness, differences in gendered career interests often persist into late adolescence [39,40]. These mixed findings suggest that it is essential to investigate how adolescents socially perceive members of different occupational groups, an issue that can be understood through two universal dimensions: warmth and competence [43–45]. The dimension of ‘warmth’ refers to perceived intent, while the dimension of ‘competence’ pertains to the perceived ability. A judgment of high ‘warmth’ entails characteristics considered typically feminine (e.g., friendly), whereas a judgment of high ‘competence’ entails characteristics typically regarded as masculine (e.g., intelligent). Along these lines, people generally assume that feminine characteristics are required for career success in feminine-stereotyped occupations and that masculine characteristics are required for career success in masculine-stereotyped occupations [46].

In recent years, studies have begun to investigate how the use of different GFL forms may modify the social perception of gender-stereotypical occupations along the dimensions of warmth and competence [31,47,48]. Theoretically, when the masculine form is used generically, it may implicitly associate occupations with masculine-associated traits, whereas inclusive GFL forms should promote more equal representations of both genders. Based on this rationale, Vervecken et al. [31] examined how French-speaking adolescents perceive the warmth and competence of individuals in gender-stereotypical occupations when these professions were presented in either the masculine or pair forms. They predicted that the pair form would weaken the impact of stereotypes, leading to success being more equally attributed to women and men, as well as to balanced perceptions of warmth and competence for stereotypically feminine and masculine occupations. In their study, adolescents were orally presented with occupational names and instructed to evaluate each occupation on each measure. The study showed that the pair form indeed led adolescents to perceive success as more equally shared between women and men and to perceive more warmth for masculine-stereotyped occupations. Surprisingly, the same pair form led feminine occupations to be seen as less warm, and language form did not affect perceptions of competence. The authors reasoned that the pair form, which emphasises that occupations can be associated with both genders, led to less differentiated perceptions of warmth and competence for feminine and masculine-stereotyped occupations. Thus, perceptions of warmth increased for masculine occupations and decreased for feminine occupations. As for competence, the authors speculated that because women are no longer seen as incompetent, the linguistic manipulation did not affect perceptions of competence. Horvath et al. [48], although testing adult participants, found somewhat similar results to those of Vervecken et al. [31]. In their study, perceived competence of gender stereotypical occupations among German and Italian adult speakers remained unaffected by the language form used (masculine and pair forms). However, they found that adult Italian-speaking men perceived professions denoted by the pair form as less warm. The authors suggest that this shift in warmth perceptions may be due to the pair form pushing the evaluations towards the middle of the scale.

While Vervecken et al.‘s study [31] highlights the importance of adolescence, when interest in future careers intensifies, and knowledge of grammatical forms deepens, most research on the impact of the pair form has focused on adults. These studies typically examine how the pair form impacts adults’ interpretation of job adverts [32,48] and their mental representations of gender [14,30]. Research on younger populations remains limited, though a handful of studies with children suggest that the pair form can increase the visibility of women [30], boost children’s self-efficacy [11,12], and the perception of success and interests in masculine-stereotyped occupations [10]. Vervecken et al.’s [31] study is among the few (but see also Escasain et al. [49]) to have specifically examined and demonstrated the effect of the pair form among adolescents. This lack of research is noteworthy, as adolescence is a critical developmental stage during which individuals learn and become sensitive to less frequently used GFL forms. Moreover, it is during this period that adolescents actively begin to evaluate social roles [44], making perceptions of warmth and competence in specific occupations central to shaping their future vocational aspirations. In this respect, adolescents may be particularly sensitive to perceptions of whether they might fit in, making their anticipated sense of belonging to future occupations a critical aspect in how vocational interests begin to take form.

Anticipated sense of belonging

Sense of belonging is considered a fundamental human need [50] and refers to the perception of being accepted or valued as a member of a social group [51]. As individuals seek acceptance from groups that share the social identities that are important to them [52], a sense of belonging, along with social identity, can influence motivation to take on new challenges [53,54] and affect one’s perceived academic potential [54] and interests in pursuing gender-unbalanced academic domains [51]. When one’s sense of belonging is uncertain or questioned, it can foster the belief that they are not welcome in the group, leading to a potential decline in performance and motivation [54]. Concerns about belonging may be particularly problematic for underrepresented group members, such as women, as they may trigger stereotype threat [54]. Importantly, there is some evidence to suggest that language can also influence one’s sense of belonging [20,55]. For example, Stout and Dasgupta found that when confronted with gender exclusive language (he) during a mock job interview, women showed a lower sense of belonging than when presented with gender-inclusive (he or she) or gender-neutral (one) forms [20].

The link between language and sense of belonging is particularly relevant in adolescence, when occupational prospects are often influenced by whether an occupation is dominated by their own gender group [56]. As young individuals grow older and increasingly explore gender roles, their sense of belonging may shift, influencing how they reflect on their future careers. Critically, subtle linguistic cues, such as GFL, may further modify these perceptions, ultimately shaping how they anticipate belonging to specific occupations. Notably, however, a study by Escasain et al. [49] found that presenting health-related occupations in the pair form did not significantly affect adolescents’ sense of belonging, suggesting that linguistic framing alone may not override stereotypes or occupational prestige. Given these mixed findings, examining how GFL affects one’s sense of belonging remains a fundamental area of research.

Individual factors influencing gender representations

Beyond the impact of specific GFL forms on the gender representation, research has highlighted some individual factors that explain how GFL may or may not exert some influence. For instance, research examining the relationship between attitudes and GFL use [57] indicates that positive attitudes toward GFL are linked to greater openness to inclusive language forms, which may, in turn, foster more inclusive gender representations when GFL is employed [58].

However, research on the relationship between attitudes toward GFL and gender representations is mixed. While Mora et al. [26] found no effects of GFL attitudes on gender representations, Braun et al. [29] showed that participants with positive attitudes toward GFL were more likely to interpret the masculine form as men-specific. According to the authors, because individuals with positive attitudes more frequently use GFL to refer to generic references, the masculine form would lose its signal as a generic reference. In contrast, Tibblin et al. [15] found an opposing finding. In their study, participants with positive attitudes towards GFL perceived fewer women than those with negative attitudes when presented with gender neutral role nouns, independent of whether the masculine or GFL forms were used. The authors argued that those with negative attitudes towards GFL may believe that women are already sufficiently represented in society and thus perceive more women.

The impact of GFL may also depend on adolescents’ stage of career exploration. Career exploration is the first of the three stages in the process leading to a realistic career choice and involves gathering relevant information about oneself and occupations to prepare for an occupation [59]. Research suggests that career exploration contributes to the development of occupational knowledge, which, in turn, affects children’s perceptions of occupational knowledge, particularly in domains they lack knowledge about [60]. For instance, Grotevant et al. [61] showed that the breadth of exploration of potential career choices, particularly the exploration of gender dominance in a given career, predicted adolescents’ career choices that were congruent with their characteristics. These findings suggest that career exploration and the developmental stage adolescents are at may be essential to how adolescents acquire and internalise gender-stereotype knowledge about different occupations. Together, these variables provide an important basis for better understanding the mechanisms by which language forms and gender stereotypes may interact in the context of our study.

The current study

Although gender stereotypes are generally resistant to change [62,63], research on GFL demonstrates that gendered perceptions of professions can be modified through the explicit use of distinct GFL forms. Such language forms may regulate the prominence of particular gender information, at times making one group more visible than the other, while in other cases, rendering both groups equally accessible. Contrary to adulthood, this aspect is particularly relevant in adolescence, a critical period during which young girls’ and boys’ gender role identities and gender stereotypes evolve, and the influence of these language forms may take different trajectories as individuals grow older. Insofar as language and stereotypes can modify social perceptions of occupations, they may also determine whether adolescent girls and boys differentially imagine themselves in those roles, with potential consequences for their vocational interests and career aspirations. Building on this premise, this study investigates how the use of the masculine and pair forms shapes adolescent girls’ and boys’ social perceptions and sense of belonging to various occupations, and how these effects unfold across distinct developmental stages.

To address these questions, we conducted two preregistered experiments. In the first experiment (Experiment 1), we focused on how the use of the masculine or pair forms to describe gender-stereotyped occupations influences adolescents’ social perceptions of key attributes, namely warmth and competence, as well as their anticipated sense of belonging to these occupations. Conceptually, our goal was to extend Vervecken et al.’s [31] study by revisiting two aspects of their research. First, rather than presenting occupational terms orally, we provided detailed written descriptions of each occupation to ensure adolescents were informed about its functions and responsibilities. Second, we broadened the scope of their study by examining not only the impact of language forms on social perceptions (i.e., perceived warmth and competence) but also on adolescents’ anticipated sense of belonging to the various occupations, a critical factor that should affect how they reflect on their realistic future careers.

To build on these findings, we conducted a second experiment (Experiment 2) to further explore the developmental aspects underlying these effects and to replicate our findings. This follow-up experiment also sought to disentangle the relationship between the various sources of gender information by incorporating individual age-related (i.e., developmental) factors. Specifically, we addressed adolescents’ attitudes toward GFL and their career exploration stage, as realistic vocational choices typically emerge between ages of 11 [64] and 14 [65]. Although Vervecken et al.’s [31] study did not find age-related effects, we took into account the developmental progression of how knowledge of language forms and gender stereotypes evolves as adolescents grow older to be crucial elements of our study, particularly given mixed evidence on their differential impact on girls and boys [39,40]. Accordingly, age and age groupings were factored across both experiments. In addition, because gender stereotypes affect girls and boys differently during this developmental stage, leading to differences in interest [40], perceived success [12], self-efficacy [3], and aspirations [66], we explicitly accounted for adolescents’ gender. On this basis, the present study examined the following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Effects of language form and occupational stereotypes on social perceptions. Our central prediction focused on the effect of language form, which we expected to shape adolescents’ social perceptions by modifying the visibility of women and men in different occupations (H1a). Given that the pair form makes both gender explicit, it should signal greater inclusivity, leading adolescents to view jobs as accessible to both women and men. We expected these effects to operate on the basis that occupations carry gender stereotypes (H1b), and as such, the effect of the pair form should attenuate the gender stereotypicality associated with these occupations. Individuals in feminine-stereotyped and gender-neutral occupations are more typically associated with higher warmth and lower competence, whereas masculine-stereotyped occupations are associated with higher competence and lower warmth. We therefore expected a main effect of occupation stereotype on warmth and competence (H1b), and critically that this stereotype effect would be modulated by language form (language form x occupation stereotype interaction; H1a). Specifically, presenting occupations in the pair form as opposed to the masculine form should lead adolescents to perceive individuals engaged in masculine-stereotyped and gender-neutral occupations as warmer yet less competent, whereas feminine-stereotyped occupations should be viewed as more competent yet less warm.

Note that although some prior studies have found that language form did not affect competence ratings, we predicted that—given our experimental setting—it would still affect our measures of competence. For example, neither Vervecken et al. [31] nor Horvath et al. [48], both of whom examined the influence of the pair form on perceptions of warmth and competence, found evidence that competence ratings were affected [48]. This lack of effect is somewhat surprising given the centrality of competence perceptions in the occupational domain. One potential explanation lies in the differences in the study populations and methodology. Horvath et al. [48], for instance, focused on adult German and Italian speakers, whereas our study targets French-speaking adolescents. As for Vervecken et al. [31], their study presented occupational titles orally to adolescents without providing any job-related descriptions. This lack of information may have limited adolescents’ ability to fully grasp the skills required for occupations, making stereotypical beliefs about the competence required for each job less susceptible to subtle linguistic cues. To address these concerns, the current study provided written, more detailed information about each occupation to assess the potential shift in adolescents’ representations. In doing so, we predicted that the effects of the pair form would also influence competence evaluations, as has been found for warmth perceptions. Additionally, we did not expect gender differences to emerge in our social perception measures but predicted a global effect of language forms (H1a). Although, Vervecken et al. [31] found that girls rated individuals in feminine-stereotyped occupations as warmer than boys, such effects of participant gender have not been consistently demonstrated across studies. We therefore refrained from making directional predictions regarding participant gender.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Effects of language form and occupational stereotypes on anticipated sense of belonging. Regarding anticipated sense of belonging, we predicted language form to influence adolescents’ anticipated sense of belonging to different occupations, although this effect was assumed to vary as a function of adolescents’ gender (H2a). As the pair form more strongly signals the presence of women and men in the occupational role, it should heighten girls’ sense of belonging for different occupations as opposed to the masculine form. In contrast, boys’ belonging [56,67] was not expected to differ by language form as both language forms already highlight the presence of men (H2a). This effect of the pair form was expected to be particularly pronounced for masculine-stereotyped and gender-neutral occupations where women’s visibility is less salient, and weakest for feminine-stereotyped occupations, where women’s presence is already strongly associated with the occupation, and thus less malleable to modification (H2c).

Similar to H1, these hypotheses are grounded on a baseline occupation stereotype effect (H1b), consistent with past findings that individuals are generally more attracted to majors dominated by their gender ingroup [56,67]. Accordingly, we expected both girls and boys to anticipate greater belonging to occupations with stereotypes that are consistent with their gender. Based on this rationale, we expected a main effect of occupation stereotype or a gender by occupation stereotype interaction reflecting a stereotype-congruent anticipated sense of belonging (H2b), modulated by language form depending on participant gender (H2a) and stereotype-occupation stereotype (H2c) as detailed above.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Age-related variations in occupational gender stereotypes. We further expected the influence of occupational stereotypes to vary with adolescents’ age, resulting in an Age x Occupation Stereotype interaction (H3). Prior studies have documented a broad gender difference in vocational interests, with boys and men favouring realistic and investigative domains and girls and women being drawn to artistic and social domains [40,45,57]. These differences are considered to intensify as children grow older and enter adolescence [39,40]. However, while most research characterises adolescence as a phase in which such vocational interests and gender differences stabilise [68], some studies also suggest that these interests are already present in late childhood [69] or that differences in vocational interests may continue to develop in response to environmental factors [57]. For social perceptions of occupations specifically, Vervecken et al. [31] found no age-related variation in gender stereotypes. Given these conflicting findings [40,70], we refrained from making specific predictions about the directionality of these effects.

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Individual differences in gender representations. Finally, we expected two individual difference variables that develop during adolescence to disentangle the effects outlined above (H4). First, adolescents’ attitudes toward GFL were expected to explain their susceptibility to language form, such that more open attitudes should be associated with the language form effect. Consequently, we expected a School Year x Participant Gender x Language Form interaction. Second, adolescents’ stages of career exploration were expected to explain the impact of occupational stereotypes. Specifically, more advanced exploration should deepen the knowledge of occupations and their associated stereotypes, resulting in a Career Exploration x Occupation Stereotype interaction.

With these hypotheses, we first tested the core effects of language form and occupational stereotype in Experiment 1.

Method

The study was preregistered on the Open Science Framework (OSF).

Results

Perceived warmth.

Beginning with the focal variable, language form was not retained in the final model as it did not improve model fit. Among the retained predictors, occupational stereotype did show a significant main effect, F(2, 13.35) = 15.75, p < .001, R²_β = .078, 90% CI [.071,.084]. Individuals engaged in feminine-stereotyped (M = 3.98, SD = .92) occupations were perceived as warmer than those in masculine-stereotyped (M = 3.29, SD = .85; p < .0001) and gender-neutral occupations (M = 3.56, SD = .90; p < .001). In contrast, warmth perceptions between masculine-stereotyped and gender neural occupations did not differ (p = .1). Additionally, a significant Participant Gender x Occupation Stereotype interaction emerged (see Fig 1a) (F(2, 263.82) = 18, p < .001, R²_β = .007, 90% CI [.005,.010]). To follow-up on this interaction, we compared girls’ and boys’ ratings within each stereotype level, as the measure concerns how perceivers evaluate others. The interaction revealed that while girls perceived individuals engaged in feminine-stereotyped occupations warmer than did boys (Girls: M = 4.07, SD = 0.83; Boys: M = 3.83, SD = 1.02; p < .001), boys viewed individuals in masculine-stereotyped occupations warmer than did girls (Girls: M = 3.24, SD = .78; Boys: M = 3.38, SD = .93; p = .029). As for individuals engaged in gender-neutral occupations, girls and boys did not differ in their perceptions of warmth (Girls: M = 3.59, SD = .85; Boys: M = 3.5, SD = .97; p = .148). No other main or interaction effects were significant.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Predicted ratings from Experiment 1: (a) perceived warmth and (b) perceived competence as a function of participant gender, language form, and occupation stereotype, and (c) perceived competence as a function of participant age (centred) and occupation stereotype.

Error bars and error bands show confidence intervals.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0354871.g001

Anticipated sense of belonging.

As for sense of belonging, while language form showed no significant main effect, a significant Participant Age × Participant Gender × Language Form interaction emerged, F(1, 258) =8.68, p = .004, R²_β = .007, 90% CI [.005,.01]. The pattern of results revealed that neither the masculine nor the pair forms impacted girls’ anticipated belonging with increasing age (Masculine: b = 0.09, SE = 0.06, z-ratio = 1.6, p = .109; Pair: b = 0.02, SE = 0.05, z-ratio = .42, p = .67), although the language form had distinct influences on boys’ anticipated belonging. The masculine form significantly decreased boys’ anticipated belonging as they grew older (b = −0.14, SE = 0.06, z-ratio = −2.41, p = .016), although the pair form had no effect on their sense of anticipated belonging with increasing age (b = 0.12, SE = 0.07, z-ratio = 1.88, p = .06) (Fig 2a).

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 2. Predicted anticipated sense of belonging ratings from Experiment 1 as a function of (a) participant age (centred), participant gender, and language form, (b) participant gender, language form, and occupation stereotype, and (c) participant age (centred), participant gender, and occupation stereotype.

Error bars and error bands represent confidence intervals.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0354871.g002

We also observed a significant Participant Gender x Occupation Stereotype interaction. Given that anticipated belonging concerns adolescents’ own anticipated sense of fit rather than their perception of others, we decomposed this interaction by comparing the different stereotype levels within each gender group. The interaction revealed differential effects of occupation stereotype between girls and boys, F(2, 261.96) = 50.68, p < .001, R²_β = .022, 90% CI [.018,.026]. (Fig 2b). While girls felt higher levels of anticipated belonging for feminine-stereotyped and gender-neutral occupations (Feminine: M = 3.42, SD = 1.11; Gender-neutral: M = 3.23, SD = 1.13; p = .455) than masculine-stereotyped occupations (M = 2.67, SD = 1.18; p < .001), boys anticipated similar levels of belonging for all occupations independent of stereotype (Feminine: M = 3.11, SD = 1.24; Masculine: M = 3.24, SD = 1.24; Gender-Neutral: M = 3.23, SD = 1.21; ps > .732). Moreover, the effect of occupation stereotype appeared to strengthen as girls grew older, as highlighted by the significant Participant Gender x Participant Age x Occupation Stereotype interaction, F(2, 261.89) = 3.14, p = .045, R²_β = .001, 90% CI [.00,.002] (Fig 2c). The interaction indicated that while girls’ sense of belonging did not differ between feminine and masculine stereotypical occupations as they grew older (b = 0.02, SE = 0.04, z = 0.45, p = .892), their sense of belonging increased for gender-neutral occupations with age, diverging significantly from both feminine (b = −0.085, SE = 0.032, z = −2.64, p = .023) and masculine-stereotyped (b = −0.105, SE = 0.039, z = −2.68, p = .020) occupations. In contrast, boys’ sense of belonging did not evolve with their age across different occupational stereotypes (all ps > .71).

Discussion

In Experiment 1, the effect of language form, our main variable of interest, did not emerge as an independent effect, but rather through its interactions with participant characteristics (age and gender). In contrast, adolescents’ social perceptions and anticipated sense of belonging for different occupational groups were consistently shaped by occupational stereotypes. Taken together, these findings suggest that the role of language form in shaping adolescents’ gender representations may differ from patterns typically observed among adults.

For social perceptions, adolescents were susceptible to occupational stereotypes (supporting H1b). Individuals in feminine-stereotyped occupations were perceived as the warmest overall, although, contrary to expectations, not as less competent than those in masculine-stereotyped or gender-neutral occupations. Each gender group also rated individuals in occupations dominated by their own gender group as warmer than those in occupations dominated by the other gender, demonstrating in-group favouritism. For girls, this pattern extended to competence, with feminine-stereotyped occupations rated more competent than boys did. No such gender differences emerged for masculine-stereotyped occupations, most likely because these professions are already strongly associated with competence [46]. Critically, and contrary to H1a, neither warmth nor competence perceptions were modulated by the language form.

Adolescents’ sense of belonging was also affected by occupational stereotypes. Girls anticipated greater belonging in feminine-stereotyped and gender-neutral occupations (supporting H2b), whereas boys anticipated similar levels of belonging in all occupations, regardless of stereotype (contrary to H2b). Among girls, belonging in gender-neutral occupations increased with age, differing from other stereotypical occupations and potentially reflecting increased awareness that these jobs are open to both genders (supporting H3). Overall, this pattern suggests that girls may be more sensitive to stereotypes, whereas boys appear less influenced by them.

For our central variable, the one place language form appeared to have an influence was boys’ anticipated sense of belonging, with the masculine form decreasing their anticipated sense of belonging as they grew older, while the pair form showed an opposing, but non-significant trend (contrary to H2a). In contrast, girls’ anticipated sense of belonging was unaffected by the language form (contrary to H2a and H2c). While we cannot definitively determine from Experiment 1 alone the reasons why only boys demonstrated greater sensitivity to these language forms, a comparable asymmetry has been reported in adults with the pair form affecting men, but not women [48]. This effect of the pair form may be linked to boys’ greater sensitivity to linguistic forms, as found among men [29], or greater concerns about vocational choices. We return to this question of the effect of the pair form in Experiment 2, treating the present pattern as tentative as the pair form effect did not reach significance.

Taken together, the results of Experiment 1 raise two important questions. First, the effect of language form was only weakly evident and appeared only in interaction with participant gender and age, raising the question of the conditions under which the effect could emerge. Second, occupational gender stereotypes influenced both gender groups across all measures, albeit in different ways and to various extents, suggesting that individual characteristics may strongly affect how these sources of gender information may emerge. To better address these two issues, Experiment 2 considered two developmental factors relevant to adolescence: openness to GFL and career exploration stage. Evidence regarding openness to GFL remains mixed, with some studies suggesting that more positive attitudes are associated with a reduced visibility of women when processing the masculine form, whereas others indicate that this is true regardless of whether the masculine form or GFL forms are employed. Meanwhile, career exploration stages are particularly relevant during adolescence, as reflecting on one’s future vocational path can have direct consequences on vocational perceptions and influence how adolescents internalise information about different occupations. Building on this rationale, Experiment 2 sought to test the replicability of the findings and to extend them by assessing these individual differences.

Method

Results

Main analyses.

Perceived warmth. The critical language form variable was qualified by a four-way interaction with school year, participant gender, and occupation stereotype, F(2, 178) = 5.04, p = .007, R²_β = .001, 90% CI [.00,.003]. As this interaction was not predicted (nor preregistered), and because higher-order interactions are statistically underpowered, we report the interaction and its decomposition for completeness but interpret it with caution (i.e., could be a spurious interaction). Decomposing the interaction by school year, 9^th grade girls’ rated feminine-stereotyped and gender-neutral occupations similarly across language forms (Feminine_Pair: M = 4.2, SD = .9; Feminine_Masculine: M = 4.19, SD = .87, p = .926; Neutral-_Pair: M = 3.76, SD = .94; Neutral_Masculine: M = 3.69, SD = .91, p = .721). Consistent with the direction predicted by our hypothesis that the pair form would moderate the impact of occupation stereotypes (H1a), they tended to rate masculine-stereotyped occupations as warmer in the pair than the masculine form (Pair: M = 3.54, SD = .87; Masculine: M = 3.19, SD = 1.02), though this difference did not reach significance (p = .055). These differences between language forms did not emerge for Grade 11 girls or boys (all ps > .379).

Additionally, and as observed in Experiment 1, the main effect of occupation stereotype was significant, F(2, 13.9) = 15.32, p < .001, R²_β = .007, 90% CI [.055,.069] with individuals in feminine-stereotyped occupations being perceived higher in warmth than those in masculine-stereotyped (Feminine: M = 3.99, SD = .97; Masculine: M = 3.41, SD = .94; p < .001) and gender-neutral (M = 3.60, SD = .97; p < .001) occupations. Occupation stereotype also interacted with participant gender (F(2, 178) = 13.95, p < .0001, R²_β = .001, 90% CI [.005,.01]). As in Experiment1, girls perceived individuals in feminine-stereotyped occupations warmer than boys did (Girls: M = 4.12, SD = .87; Boys: M = 3.87, SD = 1.03; p = .001), and the two groups did not differ for gender-neutral occupations (Girls: M = 3.63, SD = .9; Boys: M = 3.58, SD = 1.03; p = .31). The pattern diverged only for the masculine stereotyped occupations; although boys rated them warmer than girls in Experiment 1, here, the two groups did not differ in their ratings (Girls: M = 3.33, SD = .87; Boys: M = 3.48, SD = .99; p = .11) (see Fig 3a).

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 3. Predicted ratings from Experiment 2: (a) perceived warmth, (b) competence, and (c) anticipated belonging as a function of participant gender, language form, and occupation stereotype, and (d) perceived warmth as a function of grade 9 adolescents’ career exploration stages and occupation stereotype.

Error bars represent confidence intervals.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0354871.g003

Perceived competence. The main language-form variable was again included in a four-way interaction with school year, participant gender, and occupation stereotype. As this interaction was neither preregistered nor expected and given higher-order interactions of this kind are typically underpowered, we again interpret it with caution. This interaction, although retained in the model, did not reach significance, F(2, 178) = 3.00, p = .052, R²_β = .001, 90% CI [.00,.002]. Similarly, the lower-order School Year x Participant Gender x Occupation Stereotype interaction did not reach significance, F(2, 178) = 2.97, p = .054, R²_β = .001, 90% CI [.00,.002]. Decomposing the four way-interaction by school year revealed no differences between the language forms across participant gender and occupation stereotype (all ps > .5).

The Participant Gender x Occupation Stereotype interaction was significant, F(2, 178) = 6.69, p = .002, R²_β = .001, 90% CI [.001,.004] (Fig 3b). As in Experiment 1, girls rated individuals in feminine-stereotyped occupations as more competent than boys did (Girls: M = 4.09, SD = .89; Boys: M = 3.85, SD = 1.03; p = .005), while the two groups did not differ in ratings for individuals in masculine-stereotyped occupations (Girls: M = 3.92, SD = .95; Boys: M = 3.89, SD = 1.03; p = .735). The pattern of results between the experiments diverged only for gender-neutral occupations. Whereas girls rated them as more competent than boys in Experiment 1, here, the two groups did not differ (Girls: M = 4.01, SD = .91; Boys: M = 3.86, SD = 1.04; p = .1). No other main or interaction effects were significant (all ps > .09).

Anticipated sense of belonging. Language form produced no significant main or interaction effects. The analyses, however, did reveal a significant Participant Gender x Occupation Stereotype interaction F(2, 184.73) = 32.44, p < .001, R²_β = .018, 90% CI [.014,.022] (Fig 3c). As in Experiment 1, boys felt similar levels of anticipated sense of belonging for all occupation types (all ps > .054), whereas girls anticipated a greater sense of belonging to feminine-stereotyped (Feminine: M = 3.39, SD = 1.19; Masculine: M = 2.7, SD = 1.25; p < .001) and gender-neutral (Gender-neutral: M = 3.16, SD = 1.16; p = .008) occupations than masculine-stereotyped occupations (Masculine: M = 2.7, SD = 1.25). No other main or interaction effects were significant (all ps > .38).

Discussion

The results of Experiment 2 largely corroborate the findings of Experiment 1. In contrast to the robust effects of occupational stereotypes, the effects involving language form were again small and did not reach significance.

Specifically, the effect of language form emerged in adolescents’ warmth and competence perceptions only within complex four-way interactions. With these effects being only marginally significant, not being preregistered, and likely underpowered, they should be interpreted cautiously and may reflect spurious findings (contrary to H1a). In contrast, occupation stereotype affected girls’ and boys’ perceptions of warmth (supporting H1b), with this effect further modulated by school year (supporting H3). Individuals in feminine-stereotyped occupations were generally perceived as warmer than those in other occupations, with girls rating them as warmer than boys. However, these gender differences did not extend to other occupations. Among early adolescents, these stereotype effects were partially accounted for by their career exploration stages (supporting H4), with those in middle and advanced stages of career exploration attributing higher warmth ratings for individuals in stereotypically feminine, and eventually gender-neutral occupations. As for competence perceptions, individuals in feminine-stereotyped occupations were not viewed as less competent than those in masculine or gender-neutral occupations (supporting Experiment 1 and contrary to H1b), although girls again rated them as more competent than boys did.

Finally, adolescents’ sense of belonging was not affected by language form (contrary to H2a). Girls anticipated greater belonging to feminine-stereotyped occupations than to masculine or gender-neutral occupations (supporting H2b) whereas boys felt an equal sense of belonging to all occupations, independent of stereotype (contrary to H2b). These findings may suggest that boys are generally less influenced by gender stereotypes, as was the case for Experiment 1.

The limited effects of gendered language forms in adolescents’ occupational representations

We expected that increasing the visibility of both women and men using the pair form would increase perceived warmth and decrease perceived competence for individuals in stereotypically masculine and gender-neutral occupations, and the opposite pattern for feminine-stereotyped occupations (H1a). Additionally, we also expected this manipulation to heighten girls’ anticipated sense of belonging (H2a). Our predictions, however, received little empirical support. When the effect of language form emerged, it was only evident within high-order interactions involving participant gender and age. Given that these interactions were underpowered and were not initially expected (i.e., preregistered), we have interpreted them as suggestive (contrary to H1a and H2a).

With this caveat in mind, the language-form effects that we found were not consistent across our two experiments. In Experiment 1, the masculine form decreased boys’ sense of belonging as they grew older, with the pair form showing no significant effects. In Experiment 2, the pair form increased warmth perceptions compared to the masculine form for masculine-stereotyped occupations among younger, grade 9 girls, although this effect was absent among boys and older, grade 11 girls. The language form effects that we observed thus varied in the measures (belonging, warmth), gender groups, and developmental stage which they were observed. These diverging and non-replicating effects reinforce our conclusion that language form may exert only a weak and unreliable influence on adolescents’ occupational representations (contrary to H1a, H2a).

Notably, these limited language form effects diverged from those reported by Vervecken et al. [31], who found consistent language form effects on perceived warmth and perceptions of women’s and men’s success. The differences may be due to methodological disparities. In their study, the experimenters read the occupations aloud to the participants, who received no additional details or descriptions. This meant that participants relied heavily on the ‘label’ of occupations to make their decisions, where different language forms could have exerted more significant effects on their representations. In contrast, participants in our study received more detailed descriptions of each occupation, potentially leading them to develop richer mental representations. Note that Escasain et al. [49] also found similar stereotype effects among adolescents but found no significant influence of the pair form on anticipated belonging using a paradigm that presented texts with occupational descriptions. In this respect, the manipulation of language form within a longer text may have been overridden or diluted by other gender-related content, and thus too minor to have exerted a significant effect. Overall, and contrary to adult research, the pair form did not consistently and uniformly render adolescents’ occupational representations more inclusive. Its influence was limited and secondary to the more robust effects of occupation stereotypes which we now turn.

Influences of occupational gender stereotypes among girls and boys

In contrast to the limited role of language form, occupational stereotypes consistently affected adolescents gender representations (supporting H1b and H2b). Both girls and boys viewed individuals in feminine-stereotyped occupations as the warmest, compared with individuals in other occupations (supporting H1b). Notably, girls perceived individuals in these occupations as warmer than boys did, suggesting a degree of in-group favouritism for jobs stereotypically held by their gender (Experiments 1 and 2). This extended to their sense of belonging, with girls anticipating the greatest sense of belonging in feminine-stereotyped occupations (supporting H2b), while boys showed no specific preference (contrary to H2b). Such gender-group differences are consistent with prior work, including Tellhed et al. [56], who found that adolescents generally anticipate a stronger sense of belonging in careers dominated by their own gender and that girls reported greater self-efficacy in women-dominated careers, while boys demonstrated equal levels of confidence in both women- and men-dominated careers. These patterns suggested that girls are strongly affected by gender stereotypes from a young age, whereas boys were not affected by them to the same extent.

This difference mirrors several mechanisms reported in past studies. Girls and women face stereotype threat in men-dominated fields, where competence is generally associated with men, whereas men rarely encounter similar concerns [56]. Further adding to this issue, girls and women generally have lower expectations regarding self-efficacy than boys and men [82], which may narrow the range of careers they consider. The literature further confirms that beliefs about gendered traits contribute to gender segregation in employment, with feminine traits deemed essential for success in feminine-stereotyped jobs and masculine traits required in masculine-stereotyped jobs [46]. Our findings extend this literature to adolescence, demonstrating that even from a young age, girls vocational prospects and perceptions are influenced by gender stereotypes, while boys are encouraged to consider a range of occupations across various domains. Taken together, these findings reveal that occupational stereotypes impact vocational decision-making differently for girls and boys during this critical developmental period.

In addition, our study also suggested that individual factors can modulate adolescents’ susceptibility to these gender stereotypes. In line with H3, we found that knowledge of occupational stereotypes developed with adolescents’ age. As adolescents grew older, they increasingly viewed individuals in gender-neutral occupations as more competent and anticipated greater belonging to these occupations (Experiment 1). Similarly, older adolescents demonstrated an increased understanding of gender stereotypes compared to younger adolescents (Experiments 1 & 2), which led them to associate individuals in stereotypically feminine occupations more strongly with warmth. This development in stereotype knowledge among older adolescents was partially accounted for by their developing stages of career exploration (Experiment 2). These findings suggest that as adolescents consider potential career choices, their knowledge of occupations increases, which may modify or even intensify their stereotypical perceptions, at least for their perceptions of warmth (supporting H4). That career exploration did not account for the growing stereotype effects on perceived competence or anticipated belonging may suggest that regardless of whether individuals advance their knowledge of stereotypes through career exploration, adherence to stereotypes may be stable for these two measures.

Implications, limitations, and future research

A notable limitation concerns our focal variable, language form. While we anticipated systematic effects of language form, these effects did not consistently emerge, nor did they provide support for our preregistered hypotheses. The influence of language form emerged only within complex interactions involving at least three variables, raising the possibility that these effects are spurious and did not replicate across experiments. In comparison, the effects of occupational stereotypes were robust and highlighted differences between the two gender groups.

These findings stand in clear contrast to past studies on adults, which consistently showed that the pair form leads to more gender balanced representations than the masculine form [14,15,29,30,48]. For adults, the pair form has been shown to activate more women exemplars in masculine-stereotyped domains [14,27] compared to the masculine form [30], although it does not exert a comparable effect for feminine-stereotyped domains [14,27]. These findings have typically been shown in experimental paradigms where occupational nouns were presented on their own [14,53], or within relatively short texts consisting of two or three sentences [14,28], whereas our study embedded them in longer texts. Interestingly, however, gender group differences among adults have not been demonstrated as consistently as in our adolescent sample, although, in general, women have been shown to activate and reference more women exemplars than men [30], a pattern also observed in our study.

One plausible account for our weak effects of language form may therefore be methodological, suggesting that these interventions do not exert strong enough effects when embedded within a longer text where other gender information is readily available. Considering that stereotype effects could overshadow the effect of language form, future research could test the effects of language forms with only gender-neutral occupations and in contexts where other gender-related information is minimal. A second, more probable explanation is developmental. Whereas among adults, gender information embedded in language plays a dominant role and can at times even override stereotype information [8], our adolescents showed that occupational stereotypes may act as the primary source of their mental representations. This difference highlights the distinctive developmental context of adolescence, a period in which individuals are driven by the need to construct their personal and social identities and may therefore be strongly influenced by salient social categories such as gender stereotypes [83]. While some research points to a growing level of flexibility in stereotype adherence during adolescence [41], our findings appear to show the contrary, particularly for girls who may more strongly conform to stereotypes than boys. This issue is particularly relevant and reflected in the gender group differences consistently observed across our different measures, indicating that occupational stereotypes influence girls and boys at this age in different ways [49]

A further consideration is the nature of our task. Unlike tasks that require explicit reflection on gender information, our study asked adolescents to evaluate individuals in specific gendered occupations and consider whether they would feel a sense of belonging in these positions. The process of considering realistic vocational careers and viewpoints is a much more subjective and personal decision that requires reflection on one’s gender-role identity and its alignment with the occupation. The differences in findings regarding the impact of GFL forms between adults’ and adolescents’ should thus be considered with this task difference in mind. In addition, a methodological difference between our experiments also warrants attention. In our study, Experiment 2 directly associated the attributes to each occupation, (i.e., Social workers are competent), whereas Experiment 1 did so indirectly (i.e., They are competent people), where people in French (i.e., personnes) is grammatically feminine and requires grammatical inflection. This may have introduced gender saliency in Experiment 1 that was absent in Experiment 2, resulting in some discrepancies in findings between the two experiments.

Finally, age was relevant to some of our findings (H3). Specifically, we found that the effects of language form differed and evolved as they grew older. These results appear to be related to their general development (H3), as well as adolescents’ consideration of career choices (H4), their general understanding of gender stereotypes, and potential exposure to different linguistic cues. Given the importance of age-related factors on adolescents’ gender representation, future research should focus on the developmental mechanisms affecting the intricate relationship between stereotypical information and language form.

These findings carry significant implications for educational practice and career guidance. First, given the extent of the influence of occupational gender stereotypes, schools may benefit from implementing more comprehensive efforts to expose adolescents to a broader range of professions. Such efforts should not only encourage adolescents to consider a broader range of potential vocational choices but also actively educate them to challenge social gender norms. In this regard, providing opportunities to meet role models who have pursued careers beyond traditional gender boundaries would be inspirational. As for language forms, although it may shape mental representations, our findings suggest that it may be weak relative to gender stereotypes. Thus, educational emphasis on inclusive linguistic forms should be understood as complementary to challenge occupational stereotypes, and preparatory for the eventual effects it may bring in adulthood.