CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 654Social and Intergroup PsychologyCategorization, perception, and languageSocial Power and Status Dynamics

Language use in intergroup contexts: The linguistic intergroup bias.

Open access
Maass, Anne, Salvi, Daniela, Arcuri, Luciano, Semin, Gün R.·1989·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.981
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Three experiments examine how the type of language used to describe in-group and out-group behaviors contributes to the transmission and persistence of social stereotypes. Two experiments tested the hypothesis that people encode and communicate desirable in-group and undesirable out-group behaviors more abstractly than undesirable in-group and desirable out-group behaviors. Experiment 1 provided strong support for this hypothesis using a fixed-response scale format controlling for the level of abstractness developed from Semin and Fiedler's (1988a) linguistic category model. Experiment 2 yielded the same results with a free-response format. Experiment 3 demonstrated the important role that abstract versus concrete communication plays in the perpetuation of stereotypes. The implications of these findings and the use of the linguistic category model are discussed for the examination of the self-perpetuating cycle of stereotypes in communication processes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.981

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The results offer insights from a less experimentally controlled but more ecologically valid environment.

    “In contrast to previous studies conducted in controlled laboratory settings15,68,69, our results offer insights from a less experimentally controlled but more ecologically valid environment.”

    From Generative language models exhibit social identity biases (2024) · cites this paper as [15]

    The citation is attached to the description of previous studies as having been conducted in controlled laboratory settings, not to the citing authors’ assessment of their own results. The cited paper’s Method (p. 4) says participants were recruited and tested in their contrada clubhouses; Experiment 2 used the same procedure (Method, p. 8). It was an experiment, but our copy places it in clubhouses rather than a laboratory. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Discrimination is visible in language, which tends to be more abstract when people describe their outgroups' negative behavior and resort more to dehumanizing terms.

    “Such discrimination is also visible in language, which tends to be more abstract when people describe their outgroups’ negative behavior and resort more to dehumanizing terms15,16.”

    From Generative language models exhibit social identity biases (2024) · cites this paper as [15]

    The General Discussion (p. 11) reports that descriptions of out-group behavior became more abstract as the behavior became more negative. Our copy does not establish the separate claim that people resort to dehumanizing terms; its discussion concerns linguistic abstraction, not dehumanization. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. A. (1975). Bayesian analysis of attribution processes. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 261–277.
  2. Au, T. K-F. (1986). A verb is worth a thousand words: The causes and consequences of interpersonal events implicit in language. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 104–122.
  3. Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: a cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307– 324.
  4. Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1985). The psychology of intergroup attitudes and behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 219–243.
  5. Crosby, F., Bromley, S., & Saxe, L. (1980). Recent unobtrusive studies of black and white discrimination and prejudice: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 546–563.
  6. Deschamps, J.-C. (1972–73). Imputation de la responsibilité de l'échec (ou de la réussite) et catégorisation sociale [Attribution of responsibility of failure (or success) and social categorization]. Bulletin de Psychologie, 26, 794–806.
  7. Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1986a). Prejudice, discrimination and racism. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
  8. Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1986b). Prejudice, discrimination, and racism: Historical trends and contemporary approaches. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner, (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination and racism (pp. 1–34), Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
  9. Duncan, B. L. (1976). Differential social perception and attribution of intergroup violence: Testing the lower limits of stereotyping of blacks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 590–598.
  10. Hamilton, D. L., & Trolier, T. K. (1986). Stereotypes and stereotyping: An overview of the cognitive approach. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination and racism (pp. 127–163), Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
  11. Hastie, R., & Kumar, P. A. (1979). Person memory: Personality traits as organizing principles in memory for behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 25–38.
  12. Heider, F. (1944). Social perception and phenomenal causality. Psychological Review, 51, 358–384.
  13. Hewstone, M., & Jaspars, J. M. F. (1984). Social dimensions of attribution. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), The social dimension: European developments in social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 379–404). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Howard, J., & Rothbart, M. (1980). Social categorization and memory for in-group and out-group behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 301–310.
  15. Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to disposition: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219–266). New York: Academic Press.
  16. Lemyre, L., & Smith, P. M. (1985). Intergroup discrimination and selfesteem in the minimal group paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 660–670.
  17. Linville, P. W., Salovey, P., & Fischer, G. W. (1986). Stereotyping and perceived distributions of social characteristics: An application to ingroup-outgroup perception, In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination and racism (pp. 1–34). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
  18. McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination and racism (pp. 91–125). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
  19. Pettigrew, T. F. (1979). The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport's cognitive analysis of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 461–476.
  20. Rothbart, M., Evans, M., & Fulero, S. (1979). Recall for confirming events: Memory processes and the maintenance of social stereotypes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 343–355.
  21. Rothbart, M., & John, O. P. (1985). Social categorization and behavioral episodes: A cognitive analysis of the effects of intergroup contact. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 81–104.
  22. Rothbart, M., & Lewis, S. (1988). Inferring category attributes from exemplar attributes: Geometric shapes and social categories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 861–871.
  23. Rothbart, M., & Park, B. (1986). On the confirmability and disconfirmability of trait concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology;, 50, 131–142.
  24. Sagar, H. A., & Schofield, J. W. (1980). Racial and behavioral cues in black and white children's perceptions of ambigously aggressive acts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 590–598.
  25. Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1988a). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 558–568.
  26. Snyder, M., & Swann, W. B. (1978). Hypothesis-testing processes in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1202-1212.
  27. Srull, T. D., Lichtenstein, M., & Rothbart, M. (1985). Associative storage and retrieval processes in person memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 11, 316–345.
  28. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.
  29. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. S. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
  30. Taylor, D. M., & Jaggi, V. (1974). Ethnocentrism and causal attribution in a South Indian context. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 5, 162-171.
  31. Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
  32. Voster, J. (1985). Implicit causality in language: Evidence from Afrikaans. South African Journal of Psychology, 15, 62–67.
  33. Weber, R., & Crocker, J. (1983). Cognitive processes in the revision of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 961-977.
  34. Wilder, D. A. (1986). Social categorization: Implications for creation and reduction of intergroup bias. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 291–355). New York: Academic Press.
  35. Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maass, A., Salvi, D., Arcuri, L., & Semin, G. R.
Affiliations
University of Padua (IT)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1989
Volume
57
Issue
6
Pages
981-993
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
DOI
10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.981
OpenAlex
W2104841357
Cited by
654
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 57 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 25
FWCI
6.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
Keywords
linguistic intergroup bias, social stereotypes, intergroup communication, linguistic category model
MeSH terms
Aggression, Group Processes, Humans, Italy, Language, Psycholinguistics, Semantics, Social Behavior, Social Desirability, Stereotyping, Verbal Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review