The Inherent Gender of Names

A name’s sound can convey masculine or feminine traits

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

One of language's great strengths is its flexibility—words can mean anything we want them to. But not all vocabulary is arbitrary. And according to a paper published in April in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, certain types of names are more likely to be given to boys versus girls, based merely on properties of their sound.

For decades researchers have discussed the role of sound symbolism, in which the sound of a word carries meaning regardless of its definition. The most famous example is the bouba/kiki effect: people across cultures and ages associate the made-up word bouba with round objects and kiki with spiky ones. As another example, the open volume in the mouth when pronouncing vowels expresses size; think of how big an event is evoked by splosh versus splish. To explore sound symbolism, Michael Slepian, the new paper's lead author and a researcher at Columbia Business School, says he wanted to “look to a place where people give new names to things all the time: other people.” He and his collaborator at Columbia, Adam Galinsky, also wondered if sounds could convey social information.

In one study, the researchers analyzed 270 million recorded baby names in the U.S. from 1937 to 2013. They found that boys were more likely than girls to receive names beginning with “hard” (voiced) phonemes, which vibrate the vocal cords, such as the A in Adam and the B in Brian. Names starting with “soft” (unvoiced) phonemes, such as the F in Fiona or the H in Heather, were more often assigned to girls than to boys.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In several online experiments, the researchers also showed that people in both the U.S. and India perceived voiced names—whether real or invented, boys' names or girls'—as “harder” than unvoiced ones and thus more masculine. The sound-gender association was strongest in those who most highly endorsed the stereotype of men as tough and women as tender.

Slepian suggests that parents choosing baby names might use this information to play into gender norms—or to buck them.


The First Sound Matters

If a name's initial phoneme is “voiced,” meaning it vibrates the vocal cords, it tends to be judged as “harder” and more masculine. Unvoiced phonemes, formed purely with the tongue and lips, tend to be judged as “softer” and more feminine. Here are some typical—and atypical!—examples:

VOICED

UNVOICED

ADAM

CAROL

BARBARA

CHARLES

DAVID

FELICIA

EDWARD

HOPE

GREGORY

KATHARINE

GERALD

PATRICK

IAN

PHOEBE

JESSICA

QUEENIE

LUKE

SARAH

MICHAEL

SHARON

NICHOLAS

TINA

OWEN

THEO

ROBERT

 

ULYSSES

 

VINCENT

 

WILLIAM

 

YVETTE

 

ZACHARY

 


Mouth movements influence word meaning in other ways, too: Words that move from the throat to the lips, such as “gap” and “cab,” are more often associated with avoidance or pushing away. Words that move inward, however, such as “pick” and “big,” tend to suggest approachability.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe