Exploring attitudes toward gender-neutral language in Germany

Objective and Background

The objective of this study was to explore and analyze attitudes toward gender-neutral language in Germany. This includes understanding public perceptions, acceptance levels, and potential resistance to the adoption of gender-neutral terms in various contexts such as education, media, and workplace communication.

Methodology

The survey utilized a panel-based Computer-Assisted Web Interviewing (CAWI) method to collect data. This approach involved respondents from a probability-based panel completing a web-based questionnaire independently, ensuring a structured and self-administered process. The survey consisted of two questionnaires, with several questions formulated to include either gender-neutral in one and gender-specific addressing in the other, in order to establish if there would be notable differences in the responses between the two. The survey consisted of closed-ended questions only. The respondents were offered incentives to complete the survey.

While the methodology allowed for broad reach and coverage, it inherently excluded certain segments of the population. Specifically, individuals without access to a telephone—either landline or mobile—or those not living in a household with telephone access were not covered by the sample, as well as individuals who have no internet access.

Sample and Data Collection

The main fieldwork involved sending survey invitations via Email and SMS to a sample facilitated by Lifepanel over the course of three weeks. After the initial invitation, survey reminders were sent periodically each 2-4 days for the duration of the fieldwork. The respondents were randomly selected, as this was a nationally representative study, where the target population was employed respondents.

A total of 1,000 respondents participated in the study. These respondents completed the web-based questionnaire independently, ensuring a self-administered approach to data collection. 

The use of the Lifepanel platform provided a structured and reliable environment for obtaining responses, allowing participants to engage with the survey at their convenience while maintaining data integrity and consistency.

Challenges

During the initial phase of the survey, panelists who had previously indicated their employment status as “student” or “self-employed” were invited to participate. This approach was based on the assumption that these groups might include individuals with part-time employment, retirees engaged in part-time work or self-employed individuals with flexible or evolving professional schedules. 

However, this strategy proved to be inefficient, as approximately 70% of the ineligible participants originated from this batch. This highlighted a significant misalignment between the targeted profiles and the actual eligibility criteria, necessitating a refinement of the sampling approach to improve participant relevance and data accuracy.

Key Findings & Results

Early findings suggest some smaller differences in completion rates between the two survey versions, and overall some demographic skews. The survey that used gender-neutral language was observed to have a slightly higher completion rate than the one using gender-specific language, with 14.3% for the gender-specific one and 16.7% for the gender-neutral one. Regarding the demographic makeup of the final sample, and observed completion rates between specific demographic groups, there were several observations made. The biggest differences were found to be regarding educational attainment, where people who finished secondary education were more present in the gender-neutral survey, with a difference of about 35% between the two. Regarding gender, there were no notable differences found. Considering age groups, the largest variation was detected in the 50-64 age group with about a 20% difference. 

Besides the satisfactory completion rate, some break-off rates were detected during fieldwork, more specifically at battery questions, which had about 20-25 items each. About 35% of respondents who started the survey dropped off at the second battery question.

Conclusion

The panel-based CAWI methodology proved effective in reaching a diverse sample of respondents, offering a structured and reliable approach to data collection. However, the study also highlighted that the exclusion of individuals without access to telephone could significantly limit the sample representation. These limitations emphasize the need for more inclusive sampling strategies in future research to ensure broader coverage.

Overall, the study contributes to the ongoing discourse on gender-neutral language in Germany, providing a foundation for further research and policy development to promote inclusivity and awareness in the adoption of gender-neutral communication practices.