Understanding Resistance Against Gender Fair Language: A System Justification Perspective

Abstract

Recent legislative efforts to introduce obligatory use of the gender fair language (GFL) in research, education and media in Serbia received considerable resistance from the public. In line with System justification theory (SJT), we hypothesize that GFL is perceived as an intergroup status threat, which activates motivated defensive mechanism that rationalizes the legitimacy of gender relations status quo and justifies linguistic gender discrimination. Because the recognition of an unprivileged status within the system can be threatening to self-esteem, within the SJT framework members of underprivileged groups can also be motivated to engage in system justification. In an online sample of 449 participants (55% female) we applied a 29 item scale measuring the acceptance of various critical arguments against the GFL and a scale measuring the frequency of GFL use (ranging from Never to Always). The arguments against GFL were identified within the previous studies, public narrative around the GFL in Serbia and within the qualitative pilot study in a student sample (N = 80). EFA revealed that critical arguments against GFL can be described by three latent variables: 1) perceiving GFL as a threat to national identity, Serbian language and men, 2) defending linguistic status quo and rejecting the effectiveness of GFL, 3) rejection of the GFL due to linguistic barriers and habits. All three factors independently negatively predict the use of GFL: threat perceptions account for 48% of the variance in use, defending linguistic status quo accounts for 7% variance, while language barriers and habits explain 4%. Through moderated mediational analyses we tested whether the rejection of GFL use among men and women can be predicted by perceiving GFL as a threat and mediated through status quo arguments. Previously described factors were used as the predictor and the mediator in the analyses. The negative effect of threat perception on GFL use was mediated through status quo arguments, and the mediation effect was stronger among women (Direct effect: B = -.47, p < .01, CI: -.62 to -.33; Indirect effect in men: B = -.31, p < .01, CI: -.41 to -.22; Indirect effect in women: B = -.43, p < .01, CI: -.56 to -.30). While threat perceptions are higher in men, women rationalize their rejection of GFL significantly more by defending the linguistic status quo. Different forms of resistance to GFL can be traced back to intergroup threat perception and mapped onto system justification beliefs.