Nav: Home

'She' goes missing from presidential language

January 08, 2020

CAMBRIDGE, MA -- Throughout most of 2016, a significant percentage of the American public believed that the winner of the November 2016 presidential election would be a woman -- Hillary Clinton.

Strikingly, a new study from cognitive scientists and linguists at MIT, the University of Potsdam, and the University of California at San Diego shows that despite those beliefs, people rarely used the pronoun "she" when referring to the next U.S. president before the election. Furthermore, when reading about the future president, encountering the pronoun "she" caused a significant stumble in their reading.

"There seemed to be a real bias against referring to the next president as 'she.' This was true even for people who most strongly expected and probably wanted the next president to be a female," says Roger Levy, an MIT professor of brain and cognitive sciences and the senior author of the new study. "There's a systematic underuse of 'she' pronouns for these kinds of contexts. It was quite eye-opening."

As part of their study, Levy and his colleagues also conducted similar experiments in the lead-up to the 2017 general election in the United Kingdom, which determined the next prime minister. In that case, people were more likely to use the pronoun "she" than "he" when referring to the next prime minister.

Levy suggests that sociopolitical context may account for at least some of the differences seen between the U.S. and the U.K.: At the time, Theresa May was prime minister and very strongly expected to win, plus many Britons likely remember the long tenure of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

"The situation was very different there because there was an incumbent who was a woman, and there is a history of referring to the prime minister as 'she' and thinking about the prime minster as potentially a woman," he says.

The lead author of the study is Titus von der Malsburg, a research affiliate at MIT and a researcher in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Potsdam, Germany. Till Poppels, a graduate student at the University of California at San Diego, is also an author of the paper, which appears in the journal Psychological Science.

Implicit linguistic biases

Levy and his colleagues began their study in early 2016, planning to investigate how people's expectations about world events, specifically, the prospect of a woman being elected president, would influence their use of language. They hypothesized that the strong possibility of a female president might override the implicit bias people have toward referring to the president as "he."

"We wanted to use the 2016 electoral campaign as a natural experiment, to look at what kind of language people would produce or expect to hear as their expectations about who was likely to win the race changed," Levy says.

Before beginning the study, he expected that people's use of the pronoun "she" would go up or down based on their beliefs about who would win the election. He planned to explore how long would it take for changes in pronoun use to appear, and how much of a boost "she" usage would experience if a majority of people expected the next president to be a woman.

However, such a boost never materialized, even though Clinton was expected to win the election.

The researchers performed their experiment 12 times between June 2016 and January 2017, with a total of nearly 25,000 participants from the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform. The study included three tasks, and each participant was asked to perform one of them. The first task was to predict the likelihood of three candidates winning the election -- Clinton, Donald Trump, or Bernie Sanders. From those numbers, the researchers could estimate the percentage of people who believed the next president would be a woman. This number was higher than 50 percent during most of the period leading up to the election, and reached just over 60 percent right before the election.

The next two tasks were based on common linguistics research methods -- one to test people's patterns of language production, and the other to test how the words they encounter affect their reading comprehension.

To test language production, the researchers asked participants to complete a paragraph such as "The next U.S. president will be sworn into office in January 2017. After moving into the Oval Office, one of the first things that ...."

In this task, about 40 percent of the participants ended up using a pronoun in their text. Early in the study period, more than 25 percent of those participants used "he," fewer than 10 percent used "she," and around 50 percent used "they." As the election got closer, and Clinton's victory seemed more likely, the percentage of "she" usage never went up, but usage of "they" climbed to about 60 percent. While these results indicate that the singular "they" has reached widespread acceptance as a de facto standard in contemporary English, they also suggest a strong persistent bias against using "she" in a context where the gender of the individual referred to is not yet known.

"After Clinton won the primary, by late summer, most people thought that she would win. Certainly Democrats, and especially female Democrats, thought that Clinton would win. But even in these groups, people were very reluctant to use 'she' to refer to the next president. It was never the case that 'she' was preferred over 'he,'" Levy says.

For the third task, participants were asked to read a short passage about the next president. As the participants read the text on a screen, they had to press a button to reveal each word of the sentence. This setup allows the researchers to measure how quickly participants are reading. Surprise or difficulty in comprehension leads to longer reading times.

In this case, the researchers found that when participants encountered the pronoun "she" in a sentence referring to the next president, it cost them about a third of a second in reading time -- a seemingly short amount of time that is nevertheless known from sentence processing research to indicate a substantial disruption relative to ordinary reading -- compared to sentences that used "he." This did not change over the course of the study.

"For months, we were in a situation where large segments of the population strongly expected that a woman would win, yet those segments of the population actually didn't use the word 'she' to refer to the next president, and were surprised to encounter 'she' references to the next president," Levy says.

Strong stereotypes

The findings suggest that gender biases regarding the presidency are so deeply ingrained that they are extremely difficult to overcome even when people strongly believe that the next president will be a woman, Levy says.

"It was surprising that the stereotype that the U.S. president is always a man would so strongly influence language, even in this case, which offered the best possible circumstances for particularized knowledge about an upcoming event to override the stereotypes," he says. "Perhaps it's an association of different pronouns with positions of prestige and power, or it's simply an overall reluctance to refer to people in a way that indicates they're female if you're not sure."

The U.K. component of the study was conducted in June 2017 (before the election) and July 2017 (after the election but before Theresa May had successfully formed a government). Before the election, the researchers found that "she" was used about 25 percent of the time, while "he" was used less than 5 percent of the time. However, reading times for sentences referring to the prime minister as "she" were no faster than than those for "he," suggesting that there was still some bias against "she" in comprehension relative to usage preferences, even in a country that already has a woman prime minister.

The type of gender bias seen in this study appears to extend beyond previously seen stereotypes that are based on demographic patterns, Levy says. For example, people usually refer to nurses as "she," even if they don't know the nurse's gender, and more than 80 percent of nurses in the U.S. are female. In an ongoing study, von der Malsburg, Poppels, Levy, and recent MIT graduate Veronica Boyce have found that even for professions that have fairly equal representation of men and women, such as baker, "she" pronouns are underused.

"If you ask people how likely a baker is to be male or female, it's about 50/50. But if you ask people to complete text passages that are about bakers, people are twice as likely to use he as she," Levy says. "Embedded within the way that we use pronouns to talk about individuals whose identities we don't know yet, or whose identities may not be definitive, there seems to be this systematic underconveyance of expectations for female gender."
-end-
The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health, a Feodor Lynen Research Fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, and an Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Related Language Articles:

Chinese to rise as a global language
With the continuing rise of China as a global economic and trading power, there is no barrier to prevent Chinese from becoming a global language like English, according to Flinders University academic Dr Jeffrey Gil.
'She' goes missing from presidential language
MIT researchers have found that although a significant percentage of the American public believed the winner of the November 2016 presidential election would be a woman, people rarely used the pronoun 'she' when referring to the next president before the election.
How does language emerge?
How did the almost 6000 languages of the world come into being?
New research quantifies how much speakers' first language affects learning a new language
Linguistic research suggests that accents are strongly shaped by the speaker's first language they learned growing up.
Why the language-ready brain is so complex
In a review article published in Science, Peter Hagoort, professor of Cognitive Neuroscience at Radboud University and director of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, argues for a new model of language, involving the interaction of multiple brain networks.
Do as i say: Translating language into movement
Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University have developed a computer model that can translate text describing physical movements directly into simple computer-generated animations, a first step toward someday generating movies directly from scripts.
Learning language
When it comes to learning a language, the left side of the brain has traditionally been considered the hub of language processing.
Learning a second alphabet for a first language
A part of the brain that maps letters to sounds can acquire a second, visually distinct alphabet for the same language, according to a study of English speakers published in eNeuro.
Sign language reveals the hidden logical structure, and limitations, of spoken language
Sign languages can help reveal hidden aspects of the logical structure of spoken language, but they also highlight its limitations because speech lacks the rich iconic resources that sign language uses on top of its sophisticated grammar.
Lying in a foreign language is easier
It is not easy to tell when someone is lying.
More Language News and Language Current Events

Trending Science News

Current Coronavirus (COVID-19) News

Top Science Podcasts

We have hand picked the top science podcasts of 2020.
Now Playing: TED Radio Hour

Our Relationship With Water
We need water to live. But with rising seas and so many lacking clean water – water is in crisis and so are we. This hour, TED speakers explore ideas around restoring our relationship with water. Guests on the show include legal scholar Kelsey Leonard, artist LaToya Ruby Frazier, and community organizer Colette Pichon Battle.
Now Playing: Science for the People

#568 Poker Face Psychology
Anyone who's seen pop culture depictions of poker might think statistics and math is the only way to get ahead. But no, there's psychology too. Author Maria Konnikova took her Ph.D. in psychology to the poker table, and turned out to be good. So good, she went pro in poker, and learned all about her own biases on the way. We're talking about her new book "The Biggest Bluff: How I Learned to Pay Attention, Master Myself, and Win".
Now Playing: Radiolab

Uncounted
First things first: our very own Latif Nasser has an exciting new show on Netflix. He talks to Jad about the hidden forces of the world that connect us all. Then, with an eye on the upcoming election, we take a look back: at two pieces from More Perfect Season 3 about Constitutional amendments that determine who gets to vote. Former Radiolab producer Julia Longoria takes us to Washington, D.C. The capital is at the heart of our democracy, but it's not a state, and it wasn't until the 23rd Amendment that its people got the right to vote for president. But that still left DC without full representation in Congress; D.C. sends a "non-voting delegate" to the House. Julia profiles that delegate, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, and her unique approach to fighting for power in a virtually powerless role. Second, Radiolab producer Sarah Qari looks at a current fight to lower the US voting age to 16 that harkens back to the fight for the 26th Amendment in the 1960s. Eighteen-year-olds at the time argued that if they were old enough to be drafted to fight in the War, they were old enough to have a voice in our democracy. But what about today, when even younger Americans are finding themselves at the center of national political debates? Does it mean we should lower the voting age even further? This episode was reported and produced by Julia Longoria and Sarah Qari. Check out Latif Nasser's new Netflix show Connected here. Support Radiolab today at Radiolab.org/donate.