Could You Mind Your Language? An Investigation of Communicators' Ability to Inhibit Linguistic Bias    

Three experiments that examine communicators' ability to inhibit linguistic bias are reported. Research has shown that communicators use more abstract language (e.g., "Jamie is affectionate" vs. "Jamie kisses Rose") to describe more expected behavior. Recent research has shown that this bias may be overwhelmed by goals to put a "spin" on actions or to manipulate audiences' impressions of actors. Similarly, the present experiments show that people who wish to communicate without bias may often be able to do so. Inhibition occurred when participants selected descriptions from a list of alternatives and when they freely described both expected and unexpected behaviors. However, inhibition failed when participants were asked to freely describe either expected or unexpected behaviors alone.

Douglas, Karen M., Robbie M. Sutton and Katie Wilkin. Journal of Language and Social Psychology (2008). Articles>Language>Professionalism>Rhetoric

Linguistic Bias in Personnel Selection    

The present research examines how hiring committees strategically use language abstraction to collectively account for their decision to hire a job applicant over the others. In addition, the authors investigate how work interdependence between single members of hiring committees and applicants and common affiliation to the same work organization affect the language used to write individual reports on job candidates. Results of the first study show that selected applicants were described with positive terms at a higher level of abstraction and negative terms at a lower level of abstraction. The second study supports the selection linguistic bias in individually written reports and demonstrates that members of hiring committees describe interdependent applicants and those belonging to their group with negative terms at a lower level of abstraction than other applicants. The implications of the findings for the wider personnel selection context are discussed.

Rubini, Monica and Michela Menegatti. Journal of Language and Social Psychology (2008). Careers>Interviewing>Reports>Language

Generation Gaps in Attitudes Toward Sexist/Nonsexist Language    

This study of attitudes toward sexist/nonsexist language reveals generation gaps in a sample of 18- to 87-year-olds (N = 370). On average, participants are undecided about the merits of inclusive language, but older participants are more supportive than 18- to 22-year-olds. Attitudes toward women are a significant predictor of attitudes toward sexist/nonsexist language in all age—gender groups. Education is a stronger predictor than age; perspective-taking ability and gender self-esteem are each significant predictors for one age—gender group.

Parks, Janet B. and Mary Ann Robertson. Journal of Language and Social Psychology (2008). Articles>Business Communication>Discrimination>Gender