Linguistic intergroup bias

Linguistic Intergroup Bias is a term coined Anne Maass and her colleagues. It is a model of stereotype maintenance stating that positive ingroup descriptions and negative outgroup descriptions are abstract and vague, while negative ingroup descriptions and positive outgroup descriptions are specific and observable.^[1] Linguistic intergroup bias is more likely to occur when outgroup members are performing a group stereotype consistent action. This implies that the linguistic intergroup bias is a cognitive process that requires little motivation.^[2]

Mechanism

Research in social psychology shows that linguistic intergroup bias is driven by differences in how people describe ingroup and outgroup behaviors using abstract or concrete language. Positive behaviors performed by ingroup members are more often expressed with abstract trait terms (e.g., “kind” or “honest”), which generalize the behavior and imply a stable disposition. In contrast, negative behaviors by ingroup members are typically described in more concrete and situational terms, which makes them easier to dismiss as exceptions. The pattern reverses for outgroup members: negative outgroup actions are described abstractly, while positive actions are described concretely.^[3][4]

Abstract statements are vague and harder to prove wrong, while, concrete statements are specific, and easy to brush off as exceptions to the rule, therefore keeping stereotypes intact .^[5]

This linguistic asymmetry helps preserve existing group stereotypes because abstract descriptions encourage broad and dispositional interpretations, whereas concrete descriptions limit generalization. The process occurs automatically and with minimal cognitive effort, and is thought to be guided by motivational factors such as maintaining a positive social identity.^[6]

Research

Recent research has identified a related linguistic effect in which counterstereotypical individuals are liked significantly less than stereotypical individuals when they are described using behaviours but significantly more when they are described using traits. So, for example, people like “a man who is crying” less than “a woman who is crying” but they like “a sensitive man” more than “a sensitive woman”. In both cases, the man is counterstereotypical and the woman is stereotypical. However, in the former case the man and woman are described using a behaviour (“crying”) and in the latter case they are described using a trait (“sensitive”).^[7] suggest that this behaviour-trait effect is caused by differences in cognitive processing: Counterstereotypical individuals are evaluated relatively negatively when they are described using behaviours because this linguistic description promotes deeper and more systematic processing which highlights the individuals’ stereotype disconfirmation. In contrast, counterstereotypical individuals are evaluated relatively positively when they are described using traits because this linguistic description promotes heuristic processing which highlights the individuals’ uniqueness.^[8]

See also

• Bias
• In-group–out-group bias
• Prejudice
• Stereotypes
• Racism