Tell it like it is: When politically incorrect language promotes authenticity.

Abstract

When a person's language appears to be political-such as being politically correct or incorrect-it can influence fundamental impressions of him or her. Political correctness is "using language or behavior to seem sensitive to others' feelings, especially those others who seem socially disadvantaged." One pilot study, 6 experiments, and 3 supplemental experiments (N ϭ 4,956) demonstrate that being politically incorrect makes communicators appear more authentic-specifically, less susceptible to external influence-albeit also less warm. These effects, however, are moderated by perceivers' political ideology and how sympathetic perceivers feel toward the target group being labeled politically correctly. In Experiments 1, 2, and 3 using politically incorrect language (e.g., calling undocumented immigrants illegals) made a communicator appear particularly authentic among conservative perceivers but particularly cold among liberal perceivers. However, in Experiment 4 these effects reversed when conservatives felt sympathetic toward the group that was being labeled politically correctly or incorrectly (e.g., calling poor Whites white trash). Experiment 5 tests why political incorrectness can boost authenticity, demonstrating that it makes communicators seem less strategic. Finally, Experiment 6 examines the use of political language in a meaningful field context: perceived persuasion in real political debates. Debaters instructed to be politically correct (vs. politically incorrect) were judged by their uninstructed conversation partners to be easier to persuade during the conversation, although they actually reported being similarly persuaded. Together, these findings demonstrate when and how using politically incorrect language can enhance a person's authenticity.

Political Authenticity: Conceptualization of a Popular Term

“…Social performance theories serve as the theoretical basis for research on performed political authenticity. The dramaturgical theory of social interaction (Goffman 1959) claims that authentic performances involve particular relations between public and backstage performances: the less the intimate and the publicly staged persona differ from each other, the more authentic a politician is (Rosenblum et al 2020;Shane 2018). Authenticity in this context is "a minimal difference between the frontstage persona presented to the public and the backstage persona presented to intimates" (Jamieson and Waldman 2003: 29).…”

“…Perceived political authenticity differs between individuals even when it is based on the same performance (Hahl et al 2018). Scholars have identified political ideology and attitudes (Becker 2018;Brewer et al 2014;Pillow et al 2018;Rosenblum et al 2020), candidate characteristics (Enli and Rosenberg 2018), and media use (Brewer et al 2014) as reasons for intersubjective differences in perceived political authenticity. If people like a given politician, if they are members of the same party or have the same ideology, they are more likely to perceive him or her as authentic (Becker 2018;Brewer et al 2014;Pillow et al 2018;Rosenblum et al 2020).…”

“…Scholars have identified political ideology and attitudes (Becker 2018;Brewer et al 2014;Pillow et al 2018;Rosenblum et al 2020), candidate characteristics (Enli and Rosenberg 2018), and media use (Brewer et al 2014) as reasons for intersubjective differences in perceived political authenticity. If people like a given politician, if they are members of the same party or have the same ideology, they are more likely to perceive him or her as authentic (Becker 2018;Brewer et al 2014;Pillow et al 2018;Rosenblum et al 2020). Despite these individual differences in perceptions of politicians' authenticity, political authenticity is still generally mentioned by people from different national contexts as an important factor in their voting decisions (Enli and Rosenberg 2018;Stiers et al 2019).…”

Slow Lies: Response Delays Promote Perceptions of Insincerity

“…Now imagine the same scenario with one differencethe response was delivered after a slight delay. While in everyday life, communicators' sincerity and truthfulness can be inferred from what they say (Rosenblum et al, 2019) and how they say it (Hornsey et al, 2019) the aforementioned scenario seems to suggest that it somehow also depends on when they say it. In the present study, we asked the question whether and why delayed responses can be perceived as less sincere.…”

“…We predict that if the response is socially undesirable (e.g., a minority opinion), the effect of response speed on perceived sincerity will be attenuated, as people often intentionally inhibit spontaneous responses and deliberate their response in order to make it more, not less, socially desirable (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). Consequently, socially undesirable responses may be considered more authentic, less deliberated, and hence more sincere (Rosenblum et al, 2019). Finally, Study 2 tested whether our results are robust to a change to a within-subjects design (Lambdin & Shaffer, 2009).…”