Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Introduction: Promotion of gender-inclusive language has become a key political goal. Legal mandates have led to increased adoption in administration, but everyday use remains relatively uncommon. While the advantages of gender-inclusive language (greater sense of inclusion) are widely acknowledged, many individuals still refrain from actively using it. Reasons include cultural norms, habits, resistance to change, and personal values. Aim: Current instruments to assess the use of gender-inclusive language do not fully grasp the underlying reasons. Hence, their insights do not inform actionable measures to address the underlying reasons. We developed a comprehensive 21-item questionnaire that produces insights both on motivational aspects and level (emotion/cognition/behavior). Methods: The questionnaire follows the facet-theory approach and also includes a condensed 7-item version. The questionnaire was validated with data collected from two independent samples, comprising 279 participants. Results: The condensed 7-item version shows good reliability (Cronbach’s alpha .942) and excellent discriminant power ( r it ranging from .69 to .88). Conclusion: We recommend using this tool to evaluate the factors motivating the use of gender-inclusive language and to inform the development of strategies and measures aimed at promoting its wider adoption both in Germany and internationally.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schwarz et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: