What’s in a name? Does how a woman chooses to be addressed define her?

By Michelle Ceynar Rosell

Names and titles are something we often take very seriously but do not think or talk about much at all.

My mentor in graduate school told me that when she completed her Ph.D. in the late 1960s she was one of a handful of women on the faculty, and the only woman in her department. When memos arrived from the administration, those sent to her male colleagues would be addressed to “Dr. X,” while hers said “Mrs. Hill.”

It was a minor annoyance but eventually she mentioned it to her department chairman. Not only had she earned the same degree as her colleagues, she was not married. He told her she was being petty. She started receiving her mail addressed to DOCTOR HILL, a daily reminder of how she was expecting too much.

When I earned my degree in 1996, my mentor made me promise to use my title, saying it was particularly important for a young woman. It has been harder than I thought it would be to keep this promise. I’ve found it is one thing to use your own title, but it is quite another to get others to use it. Students rarely call me Dr. Ceynar Rosell unless I am specifically introduced as such.

As an undergraduate, I had a professor who complained that his students were uncomfortable calling him by his first name even after he requested they use it. On the other hand, some of my women colleagues lament about being called Mrs., even when they aren’t married. My graduate mentor laughed about a student inquiring whether she preferred “Fran or Francine.” (Her first name is Frances).

Researchers have found that students see professors who use their titles as having higher status than those who use their first names. Social psychologists Takiff, Sanchez and Stewart documented that students are more likely to address male professors by their titles than female professors.

This difference can be easily dismissed as insignificant – it’s only a title, an abbreviation and an unnecessary formality. But is it? Language is socially constructed and the words we use reflect our knowledge and beliefs. For example, we use titles to refer to people who have status and authority. Imagine someone shaking hands with the President of the United States and saying, “Nice to meet you, George.”

Language can also affect the way we think, and titles bring status and respect. We refer to authority figures by their titles because we have respect for them, but using that title can also cause others to view that person with respect. My mentor knew firsthand that by insisting that others use the title you earned, she was claiming the status she earned with her education.

Another reason it has been hard to keep my promise is that research also tells us that students perceive female professors who use their titles as being less accessible than those who use their first name (a title does not affect a male professor’s perceived accessibility, according to Takiff, Sanchez and Stewart). For women faculty, choosing to use their titles means risking being seen by students as less friendly and approachable.

While I want my students to think of me as approachable, I also want them to see me as having expertise. The unfortunate reality is that many expect women always to be nurturing and kind, and those expectations are transferred into every position they hold.

Both women and men are evaluated based on how well they fulfill their expected roles in society. But women are negatively evaluated when they violate the expectation that they are nurturing, even when they are fulfilling the expectations for their professional roles. Women who are in non-traditional roles, such as holding a political office or being the CEO of a large corporation are expected to be warm and nurturing – expectations that are in conflict with their roles as leaders.

Role Congruity Theory proposes that differential evaluations of women in leadership roles is largely due to the discrepancy between the leadership role and female gender role, according to research by Eagly and Karau. A woman who wants to be referred to by her earned title is making this discrepancy salient, making her appear to conform less to the female gender role.

I have not been faced with the blatant discrimination my mentor faced in the 1960s. In modern society prejudice is often subtle and therefore easy to rationalize as being insignificant. We hear that an African American friend was treated rudely by the salesman or that a woman locked her car door when she saw the Latino man approaching or that the server at the restaurant took a white couple’s order first, even though the Korean couple had been sitting there longer.

We can explain away many discriminatory behaviors and sometimes we are right. Salesmen do have bad days, women do need to be careful in parking lots, and servers don’t always see who is seated first in a busy restaurant. How do we know that people are being treated differently because they belong to a particular group?

The problem in finding an appropriate remedy comes when women in professional and leadership positions experience subtle discrimination every day. When is it prejudice, and how should it be addressed?

Michelle Ceynar Rosell is assistant professor of psychology. She dedicates this piece to her mentor, Frances Hill..