Do Messages That Encourage the Use of They/Them Pronouns Influence Public Opinion?

Download data and study materials from OSF

Principal investigators:

Judd R. Thornton

Georgia State University

Email: jrthornton@gsu.edu

Homepage: https://cas.gsu.edu/profile/judd-thornton/

Toby Bolsen

Georgia State University

Email: tbolsen@gsu.edu

Homepage: https://cas.gsu.edu/profile/toby-bolsen/


Sample size: 1601

Field period: 02/15/2022-08/22/2022

Abstract
The singular use of they/them pronouns to refer to gender-nonconforming persons is growingly accepted grammar in the English language. Yet Americans’ comfort and willingness to use gender-neutral pronouns are divided along partisan lines. It is important to better understand potential ways to reduce polarization given the psychological harm that misgendering a person can induce. In this paper, we report the results from a pre-registered survey experiment on a large and nationally representative sample in the U.S. to investigate how normative messages encouraging the use of they/them pronouns influences people’s comfort using gender-neutral pronouns and willingness to state their personal pronouns. We also examine the downstream effects of these messages on expressions of tolerance/prejudice towards people who identify as transgender. We find, counter to our hypotheses, that normative messages do not depolarize the public and can sometimes backfire and increase existing polarization, largely due to shifts observed among Republicans and men.
Hypotheses

H1: Providing a description that normalizes the singular use of they/them pronouns to refer to transgender and gender non-conforming persons will increase people’s comfort using gender-neutral pronouns and willingness to state one’s personal pronouns.

H2: Communicating an injunctive norm will increase people’s comfort using gender-neutral pronouns and willingness to state one’s personal pronoun.

H3: Exposure to a message that emphasizes both a descriptive and injunctive norm about the use of they/them pronouns to refer to transgender and gender non-conforming persons will increase individuals’ expressed comfort using gender-neutral pronouns and willingness to state one’s personal pronouns.

H4: Communicating descriptive and injunctive norms in isolation or in conjunction regarding they/them pronoun use will increase individuals’ support for online forms including more than two options for those who identify as gender non-binary.

H5: Exposure to descriptive or injunctive messages normalizing the behavior of stating one’s personal pronouns would increase tolerance (i.e., reduce prejudice) towards transgender persons.

RQ: Are any treatment effects moderated by partisanship?

Experimental Manipulations

Respondents began the survey by providing consent to participate and then were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions: (1) a control condition; (2) a condition that highlights the growing acceptability of the singular use of they/them pronouns to refer to transgender or gender-nonconforming people and asks respondents to select their pronouns from a list; (3) a condition that emphasizes an injunctive norm that states that referring to people by the pronouns they determine for themselves is something everyone should do; and, (4) a condition that provides the descriptive information and selection of pronouns along with the injunctive norm message.

Respondents randomly assigned to the descriptive-information only condition read the following statement: “A transgender individual has a gender identity that differs from the sex the person was identified as having at birth. The singular use of they/them pronouns to refer to transgender or gender-nonconforming persons is growingly accepted grammar in the English language. If you need to refer to a person who uses they/them pronouns in a formal context, you can use the gender-neutral honorific ‘Mx.’ Instead of ‘Mr.’ or ‘Ms.’” Respondents in this condition then selected their pronouns from a drop-down list (the question offered “multiple select” options).

The injunctive-norm treatment included the following sentences: “Referring to people by the pronouns they determine for themselves is basic to human dignity. This is something everyone should do. Being referred to by the wrong pronouns is harmful to transgender and gender non-conforming persons. Together, we can transform society to help improve the quality of all people’s lives.”

Outcomes

“How unwilling or willing are you to state your own pronouns to people you meet for the first time?” (1=Extremely unwilling to 7=Extremely willing).

“How uncomfortable or comfortable would you feel using they/them pronouns to refer to transgender or gender non-conforming persons?” (1=extremely uncomfortable to 7=extremely comfortable).

"When a form or online profile asks about a person's gender, it should include they/them options for transgender or gender non-conforming individuals?” (1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree).

To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statement: (1) “I would feel comfortable working closely with a transgender person (a person who was born with a boy's body but now identifies as a woman or a person who was born with a girl's body but now identifies as a man)”; and, (2) “Saying you are a gender that is different than the one you were born as is morally wrong.” (1=strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree). We created an index that is an average of the items where higher values represent greater prejudice (α = 0.723).

Summary of Results
We identify substantial partisan polarization on all outcome measures. We do not find support for H1: there was no effect of the descriptive norm on any outcome measures. We find, counter to H2, that the injunctive norm presented in isolation "backfired" and significantly reduced willingness to state one's pronouns. This backfire effect of the injunctive norm was driven by the responses of Republicans and Independents (but not among Democrats) in the sample. We also find no support for H3: the combination of the descriptive and injunctive norm had no effect on the outcome measures. In addition, there was no support for H4 regarding any effect of the treatments on support for online forms including more than two options. There was also no support for H5 regarding any effect of the treatments on the prejudice scale. Finally, in additional analyses that explore gender as a moderator of the treatment effects, we find that the backfire effect observed from the injunctive norm was driven by the responses of male respondents in the study, not only Republicans and Independents but also males who identified as Democrat.