Effects of the Generic Masculine and Its Alternatives in Germanophone Countries: A Multi-Lab Replication and Extension of Stahlberg, Sczesny, and Braun (2001)

Hilmar Brohmer; Gabriela Hofer; Sebastian A. Bauch; Julia Beitner; Jana B. Berkessel; Katja Corcoran; David Garcia; Freya M. Gruber; Fiorina Giuliani; Emanuel Jauk; Georg Krammer; Smirna Malkoc; Hannah Metzler; Hanna M. Mües; Kathleen Otto; Rima-Maria Rahal; Mona Salwender; Sabine Sczesny; Dagmar Stahlberg; Wilken Wehrt; Ursula Athenstaedt

doi:10.5334/irsp.522

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Summary of the main hypotheses, models, variables, and effects of interest.

HYPOTHESIS	MODEL AND VARIABLES	EFFECT(S) OF INTEREST	REMARK
1. Compared to the generic masculine form, the internall and feminine masculine form will yield a higher number of women mentioned.	General linear model (ANOVA); IV: form, moderator: participant sex, DV: women mentionedⁱ; additional multilevel model with Poisson-distributed measures per category nested in participants and labs	Helmert contrast (GM vs. II & FM); Cohen’s d for the mean difference	Close replication (Stahlberg et al., 2001, Experiment 2) Original categories: athletes, politicians, singers, tv hosts Three celebrities per category are required
2. Compared to the generic masculine and the control form, the internal-I, feminine masculine, and gender star form will yield a higher number of women mentioned.	Multilevel model with Poisson-distributed measures per category nested in participants and labs, IV1: form, IV2: participant sexⁱⁱ, DV: women mentioned	Deviation contrast (GM & C vs II. FM & GS); standardized effect: incident rate ratio	Based on Pre-Study 1 and 2 Original plus extra categories: writers and actors Two celebrities per category are required
3. Higher scores on the perceived base rate (perceived higher proportion of women) are associated with a higher number of women mentioned, when it is controlled for the form effect.	Multilevel model with Poisson-distributed measures per category (I1) nested in participants (I2), IV1: form, IV2: perceived base rate, DV: women mentioned	Effect of the perceived base rate (level 1) and of the form as in H2 (level 2); standardized effect: incident rate ratio	Based on Pre-Study 2 Original plus extra categories: writers and actors Two celebrities per category are required complete perceived base rate items

[i] Note: GM = generic masculine, C = control, II = internal I, FM = feminine-masculine, GS = gender star; ⁱ an additional multilevel model will be calculated for Hypothesis 1, ⁱⁱ a language form × sex interaction will also be checked for Hypothesis 2, but effects will be taken from the covariate model; variables in gray boxes are controlled for, but not of primary interest; this table is revised and the original table can be found in Supplemental Materials 3 (https://osf.io/ecpgx).

Google searches for ‘gendern’ (using gender-inclusive language in everyday language), ‘Binnen-I’ (internal I) and ‘Gendersternchen’ (gender star) from Jan 2018 to June 2024.
*Note*: Based on a population of >60 million German users, >7 million Austrian users, and >8 million Swiss users; updated figure and original figure is in Supplemental Materials 3, https://osf.io/ecpgx; searches in percent are standardized on the maximum search per country; diagonal lines across panels connect reference maxima; absolute number of searches is not provided by Google Trends; example search for upper left panel: https://trends.google.de/trends/explore?date=2018-01-012024–05–18&geo=AT&q=Gendersternchen,Binnen-I,gendern.

Table 2

Characteristics of the samples used to test the specific hypotheses.

LAB	n	GENDER			AGE	HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION					CHILDHOOD RESIDENCE				NATIONALITY
LAB	n	MEN	WOMEN	DIV.	M (SD); MIN–MAX	NONE	P/S SCHOOL	EXT. S SCHOOL	H/T SCHOOL	UNI.	VILLAGE	CITY	BIG CITY	METROP.	AT	DE	CH	OTHER	NA
H1
Bauch*	62	11	51	0	28.65 (10.08); 18–63	0	0	5	40	17	38	20	3	1	0	61	0	1	0
Beitner*	83	18	64	1	31.13 (9.67); 18–60	0	0	1	27	55	30	32	21	0	1	82	0	0	0
Brohmer & Hofer	125	70	55	0	35.96 (12.20); 20–71	0	0	1	22	102	69	29	24	3	118	4	0	3	0
Giuliani*	68	16	52	0	30.68 (11.56); 18–74	0	2	0	26	40	27	26	10	5	5	27	35	1	0
Gruber	121	31	90	0	25.69 (11.62); 18–73	0	1	1	87	32	65	35	14	7	57	60	0	4	0
Jauk	189	66	122	1	29.06 (13.85); 18–76	0	0	5	101	83	67	56	56	10	1	188	0	0	0
Malkoc*	56	28	28	0	30.70 (12.10); 18–65	0	0	0	23	33	35	14	5	2	50	3	0	1	2
Muees*	86	19	66	1	28.14 (8.83); 18–65	0	0	1	36	49	31	21	10	24	70	12	1	2	1
Salwender & Berkessel	217	42	173	2	25.37 (6.15); 18–63	0	0	2	107	108	101	62	40	14	2	210	0	2	3
Wehrt & Otto	124	31	93	0	27.90 (10.56); 18–64	0	0	2	76	46	60	49	10	5	1	122	0	1	0
ZPID-AT**	162	68	93	1	48.07 (14.28); 19–79	0	7	25	87	43	74	36	25	27	151	11	0	0	0
ZPID-DE**	186	73	112	1	53.56 (17.00); 18–87	0	12	52	68	54	56	76	40	14	1	184	0	1	0
Total	1479	473	999	7	34.08 (15.62); 18–87	0	22	95	700	662	653	456	258	112	457	964	36	16	6
H2 & H3
Bauch*	117	16	101	0	28.50 (9.74); 18–63	0	0	10	85	22	68	43	4	2	0	116	0	1	0
Beitner*	136	30	104	2	30.00 (8.52); 18–60	0	0	1	40	95	41	52	40	3	1	134	0	1	0
Brohmer & Hofer	224	121	102	1	37.32 (12.95); 20–100	0	0	4	38	182	133	50	37	4	209	11	0	3	1
Giuliani*	110	29	81	0	31.06 (11.68); 18–74	0	2	0	45	63	42	40	16	12	9	42	55	2	2
Gruber	227	56	171	0	25.08 (9.94); 18–73	0	2	1	167	57	117	64	33	13	99	123	0	5	0
Jauk	345	111	232	2	29.05 (14.19); 18–76	1	1	7	200	136	131	105	98	11	1	344	0	0	0
Malkoc*	111	54	57	0	31.05 (12.26); 18–71	0	0	0	44	67	65	32	10	4	99	8	0	2	2
Muees*	162	37	124	1	28.42 (9.41); 18–68	0	0	1	65	96	66	45	14	37	131	23	1	5	2
Salwender & Berkessel	375	79	293	3	25.90 (7.43); 18–79	0	0	5	190	180	166	120	67	22	2	367	0	2	4
Wehrt & Otto	232	52	177	3	27.85 (10.63); 18–68	0	0	3	146	83	103	92	27	10	1	228	0	2	1
ZPID-AT**	324	129	193	2	48.13 (14.39); 19–79	0	17	44	182	81	145	72	49	58	307	17	0	0	0
ZPID-DE**	334	139	192	3	53.89 (16.61); 18–87	1	26	94	115	98	90	138	80	26	2	330	0	2	0
Total	2697	853	1827	17	34.38 (15.79); 18–100	2	48	170	1317	1160	1167	853	475	202	861	1743	56	25	12

[i] Note: Div. = Diverse; P/S school = primary or secondary school; Ext. S school = extended secondary school (‘Real-’ or ‘Mittelschule’); H/T school = high school diploma or trade school; Univ. = university degree; Metrop. = metropolis; AT = Austria; DE = Germany; CH = Switzerland; Other = other nationality (often double citizenship with either German or Austrian included); NA = response not provided.

* Labs that could not reach the anticipated samples of n = 200 to 250; ** Additional samples to achieve the anticipated sample size.

Forest Plots of the Main Contrast of Interest in Hypothesis 1 (Generic-Masculine vs. Internal-I and Feminine-Masculine Form).
*Note*: N = 1479. Panel A shows the contrast expressed in the Cohen’s d metric. The vertical line represents our smallest effect size of interest (d = 0.18). Panel B shows the mean difference in the original metric (number of women mentioned; 0–12). The vertical line represents an effect of 0. Squares represent effects per lab with error bars being 90% confidence intervals (for one-sided testing). Diamonds are meta-analytic random effects.

Table 3

Mean number of women mentioned per sex, category, and group.

SEX	CATEGORY	CONTROL (n = 594)		GENERIC M. (n = 550)		INTERNAL-I (n = 473)		FEM.-MASC. (n = 551)		GENDER S. (n = 529)
SEX	CATEGORY	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Male	Actor⁺	0.66	0.69	0.50	0.71	1.09	1.11	0.80	0.85	0.80	0.86
	Politician	0.80	0.71	0.68	0.62	1.21	0.94	0.82	0.64	0.85	0.77
	Singer	0.79	0.88	0.69	0.91	1.84	1.08	1.01	0.83	1.50	1.03
	Athlete	0.15	0.37	0.16	0.42	0.74	1.08	0.26	0.47	0.33	0.64
	TV host	0.54	0.64	0.57	0.76	1.05	1.04	0.69	0.76	0.72	0.82
	Writer⁺	0.52	0.66	0.40	0.63	0.96	0.98	0.64	0.73	0.67	0.76
Female	Actor⁺	1.02	0.82	0.84	0.86	1.49	0.97	1.18	0.82	1.18	0.92
	Politician	1.01	0.73	0.85	0.71	1.50	0.97	1.07	0.65	1.14	0.76
	Singer	1.22	0.91	0.98	1.02	2.31	0.87	1.60	0.91	1.90	0.95
	Athlete	0.45	0.66	0.30	0.60	1.08	1.11	0.53	0.72	0.62	0.89
	TV host	0.78	0.75	0.81	0.82	1.32	1.02	1.04	0.85	1.05	0.88
	Writer⁺	1.18	0.87	0.99	0.89	1.58	0.97	1.24	0.88	1.35	0.92

[i] Note: N = 2,697. SD = standard deviation. ⁺ = category introduced for the extended replication. Possible range: 0–3.

Table 4

Ratios of differences in the number of named women between conditions (pairwise comparisons).

CONTRAST	RATIO	SE	z-RATIO	p
C vs. GM	1.19	0.04	5.50	<.001
C vs. II	0.59	0.02	–18.38	<.001
C vs. FM	0.84	0.02	–5.79	<.001
C vs. G*	0.77	0.02	–9.02	<.001
GM vs. II	0.49	0.02	–23.01	<.001
GM vs. FM	0.71	0.02	–11.04	<.001
GM vs. G*	0.64	0.02	–14.11	<.001
II vs. FM	1.44	0.04	12.66	<.001
II vs. G*	1.31	0.04	9.38	<.001
FM vs. G*	0.91	0.03	–3.27	.011

[i] Note: N = 2697. C = control condition. GM = generic masculine. II = internal-I. FM = feminine-masculine. G* = gender star. p-values are Bonferroni-corrected (adjusted for 10 tests). Tests were performed on the log scale. Values above 1 indicate a higher number of women named in the left compared to the right condition (e.g, in the first row, more people were named in the C than in the GM condition).

Violin plots showing the number of women named per condition **(A)** and per condition and sex **(B)**.
*Note*: N = 2,697. Black dots indicate means and 95% confidence intervals. Colorful dots are participant-level data. C = control condition. GM = generic masculine. II = internal-I. FM = feminine-masculine. G* = gender star.

Ridgeline plots showing the perceived base rate per category.
*Note*: N = 2,697. Black dots indicate means and 95% confidence intervals (not visible here, due to precise estimation). Black horizontal lines indicate quartiles. The scale ranged from 1 (‘Men are much more present than women’) to 11 (‘Women are much more present than men’).

Effects of the Generic Masculine and Its Alternatives in Germanophone Countries: A Multi-Lab Replication and Extension of Stahlberg, Sczesny, and Braun (2001)

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Figure 1

Table 2

Figure 2

Table 3

Table 4

Figure 3

Figure 4

Paradigm

My account