Students’ Address and Reference Term Choices for Female versus Male Professors

Abstract

AbstractUsing four methodologies, with both students and professors as participants, we predicted and found that college students are more likely to address/reference female versus male professors by first name. The effect was not explained by perceptions of lower status/competence or greater warmth, but rather more student-professor interaction. When we made first-name-only references impractical, students actually used more formal reference terms for female than male professors. We discuss potential moderating variables and implications for female faculty work life.Keywords: address termsgenderprofessorsreference termsrelationshipsstereotypestitles Ethics statementAll studies in this manuscript were approved by our university’s Institutional Review Board.Disclosure statementThe authors have no competing interests.Notes1 We examined the job status of those professors who were referenced at least once by name, identifying 69 (54 male, 15 female) as Full Professors, 30 (15 male, 15 female) as Associate Professors, and 62 (40 male, 22 female) as non-tenured faculty (Assistant Professors, Visiting/Adjunct Professors, and Lecturers). A gender × job status chi-square test resulted in a significant interaction, χ2(2, n = 161) = 8.10, p = .017, C2 = .05. + There were proportionally more male than female professors at the Full Professor level. To examine the potential role of job status differences in gender differences, we performed a gender × job status ANOVA on the first name references. + The gender main effect was still significant and had the same effect size, suggesting that job status accounted for none of gender’s effects on first name usage. + The only other significant finding was a job status main effect, F(1, 155) = 7.28, p = .001, η2 = .09. + Tukey post-hoc tests revealed that Associate Professors were more often referenced by first name, as compared to both Full Professors (p < .001) and non-tenured Professors (p = .006), which interestingly did not differ (p = .344).2 The website also included “easiness” ratings, which were similarly unrelated to professor gender and positively related to first name references.3 These results excluded 17 professors without quantifiable responses to the invitation item.4 We specified the audience as students taking the same class because we wanted students to feel free to use any reference term they wanted, as opposed to thinking they had to identify the professor by name to students who might be unfamiliar with the professor. If participants had to use the full name or last name for identification reasons, then it would introduce an element that is not relevant to situations in which address terms are used, thus making the comparison between reference and address terms more complex.5 We also ruled out some potential confounds (average class size, average grade earned in the class, average number of times students took that professor, average number of instructors taken by students, average number of terms students had been enrolled in college), none of which differed by professor gender.6 Study 1 was limited by potential selection bias if students with more extreme views of professors post more online reviews. Also, the website does not guard against fictitious responses or multiple responses from the same students. Studies 2 and 3 were limited their reliance on accurate and unbiased estimates. Study 4 involved fictitious scenarios which may not generalize.Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by a McNair Scholars Project Grant.