The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Capturing socially motivated linguistic change: how the use of gender-fair language affects support for social initiatives in Austria and Poland
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01617 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Magdalena M. Formanowicz, Aleksandra Cisłak, Lisa K. Horvath, Sabine Sczesny |
| Abstract |
Gender-fair language consists of the symmetric linguistic treatment of women and men instead of using masculine forms as generics. In this study, we examine how the use of gender-fair language affects readers' support for social initiatives in Poland and Austria. While gender-fair language is relatively novel in Poland, it is well established in Austria. This difference may lead to different perceptions of gender-fair usage in these speech communities. Two studies conducted in Poland investigate whether the evaluation of social initiatives (Study 1: quotas for women on election lists; Study 2: support for women students or students from countries troubled by war) is affected by how female proponents (lawyers, psychologists, sociologists, and academics) are referred to, with masculine forms (traditional) or with feminine forms (modern, gender-fair). Study 3 replicates Study 2 in Austria. Our results indicate that in Poland, gender-fair language has negative connotations and therefore, detrimental effects particularly when used in gender-related contexts. Conversely, in Austria, where gender-fair language has been implemented and used for some time, there are no such negative effects. This pattern of results may inform the discussion about formal policies regulating the use of gender-fair language. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 58 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 14% |
| Researcher | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 21 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 19 | 33% |
| Linguistics | 7 | 12% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 22 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 September 2017.
All research outputs
#13,215,982
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#12,496
of 29,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,907
of 284,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#239
of 487 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,821 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 284,235 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 487 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.