On the different uses of linguistic abstractness: from LIB to LEB and beyond

Abstract

Linguistic abstractness has been shown to mediate persuasive and attributional effects of communication. The linguistic intergroup bias (LIB) refers to the tendency to describe positive ingroup and negative outgroup behaviors more abstractly than negative ingroup and positive outgroup behavior. Recently, the LIB was shown to reflect to a large extent a linguistic expectancy bias (LEB). Abstract language need not have an ingroup-serving function, but may be used to communicate expected information in a concise and condensed manner. The present research shows that the reverse may also be true. When the interaction goal is not merely to convey information that is shared anyway because it is typical of the communication target but to transmit unshared information (known to the communicator but new to the recipient), then it may be necessary to express (explain, teach, interpret) unexpected ideas or deviant attitudes in abstract, interpretive terms. The joint operation of both principles was demonstrated within the same experimental task. In communications about East Germans, more abstract predicates were used in typically East German domains (LEB). However, more abstract terms were also used when messages deviated from the recipient's prior attitude. A conceptual framework is proposed to integrate these findings. Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Although language is an essentially interpersonal, socially regulated aspect of behavior, and a major module of social intelligence, it was long neglected in social psychology. Most textbooks do not devote a chapter to language or verbal communication. Only recently this 'muteness', or lack of interest in language, is giving way to intriguing demonstrations that social knowledge is partly wired into language. Language per se-as a knowledge store and as a conversational rule system-can have a strong and regular influence on communication outcomes, above and beyond individual communicators' intention.To illustrate this point, consider how simply adhering to word meaning and rules of language use can inadvertently foster sexist stereotypes. For example, the writer of a novel can use different words

When Do We Communicate Stereotypes? Influence of the Social Context on the Linguistic Expectancy Bias

“…what communication goals do communicators have? Douglas & Sutton, 2003), and recipient characteristics in particular (Douglas & McGarty, 2001Fiedler, Bluemke, Friese, & Hofmann, 2003;Rubini & Sigall, 2002;. For instance, with respect to the LIB, Gil de showed that the dependency of the relationship between a communicator and a recipient may moderate the LIB effect.…”

“…Higgins, 1981;Kingsbury, 1968;Krauss & Fussell, 1996;McCann & Higgins, 1992), the current findings indicate that the interpersonal transmission of stereotypes by means of a linguistic bias may be strongly influenced by the characteristics of a recipient. It may therefore be important for future LEB research to take the relevant recipient characteristics into account when studying the production of a linguistic bias (see Fiedler et al, 2003).…”

Message content, group identification and the intergroup sensitivity effect: Responses to the message and recognition memory

“…To our knowledge it is the first study to use memory measures in an investigation of the ISE, paving the way for bringing together cognitive and motivational approaches to responses to communications originating from in‐ and outgroup sources. Thus, it may be viewed as extending both Hornsey's work on ISE and recent work on the choice of abstract or concrete terms in communication (Fiedler, Bluemke, Friese, & Hofmann, 2003). Possible future investigations of reactions to criticisms by in‐ and outgroup sources worded in different levels of abstractness addressed to ingroup and outgroup audiences appear promising as extensions to this line of research.…”

Communicating Between Groups, Communicating About Groups

“…For instance, prosecution and defense attorneys choose distinct language patterns when talking about the accused (Schmid & Fiedler, 1998). Similarly, communication goals such as convincing the recipient, signaling positive or negative impressions of a target, or confirming or disconfirming the expectations of the recipient have been shown to affect message framing (Fiedler, Bluemke, Friese, & Hofmann, 2003;Semin, de Montes, & Valencia, 2003). Thus, the extent to which LIB and LEB emerge depends not only on the communicator's beliefs, but also on his/her communication goals and on the type of relation that exists between sender and recipient of a message.…”