Glossary
Linguistic Intergroup Bias
Compare two ways of describing the same good act:
“She returned the wallet.”
“She is honest.”
The first sentence reports an event. The second turns the event into a trait. It implies something enduring about the person—something that may carry into the next situation and the one after that.
What is linguistic intergroup bias?
Linguistic intergroup bias is the tendency to describe favorable behavior by members of one’s own group, and unfavorable behavior by members of another group, in more abstract terms. Behavior that runs against the group stereotype is more likely to be described concretely, as a specific act tied to a particular moment.
The pattern is easier to see in four sentences:
| Person and behavior | Description favored by the pattern | Level of abstraction |
|---|---|---|
| Ingroup member does something good | She is honest. | More abstract |
| Ingroup member does something bad | She raised her voice. | More concrete |
| Outgroup member does something good | She returned the wallet. | More concrete |
| Outgroup member does something bad | She is aggressive. | More abstract |
The first and fourth descriptions turn one act into a trait. The other two leave the behavior tied to a particular event.
Why does abstraction matter?
Abstract language travels. If someone “raised her voice,” the claim belongs to one episode. If she “is aggressive,” the claim sounds stable, broad, and predictive. It invites the listener to expect similar behavior elsewhere.
This asymmetry can preserve a group stereotype without anyone stating the stereotype directly. Good behavior by an outgroup member becomes an exception: she returned a wallet once. Bad behavior by an ingroup member becomes another exception: she raised her voice that time. The stereotype-consistent acts become evidence about what each group is like.
Language does not do this work alone. Existing beliefs affect which description feels apt, and the description can then pass those beliefs to another person.
What did the original studies find?
Anne Maass and colleagues introduced the term in three studies published in 1989. In their experiments, desirable ingroup behavior and undesirable outgroup behavior were described more abstractly than undesirable ingroup behavior and desirable outgroup behavior. One study also examined how abstract and concrete descriptions could help transmit stereotypes.
Later work asked whether the pattern begins when people interpret the event or when they choose language for an audience. Experiments by Christianne Wenneker and colleagues found roles for both initial encoding and communication goals. Linguistic intergroup bias need not be a deliberate attempt to persuade, but neither is wording always independent of what a speaker wants to communicate.
What linguistic intergroup bias is not
Abstract language is not inherently biased. “She is patient” may summarize years of behavior. A concrete description is not inherently fair. It can omit context or select the one event that makes a group look bad.
The diagnostic pattern is comparative. Are similar acts described as stable traits for one group and temporary events for another? Does a good act become evidence of character only when an ingroup member performs it? Does a bad act become character only when an outgroup member performs it?
The concept is related to the ultimate attribution error, which concerns different explanations for ingroup and outgroup behavior. Linguistic intergroup bias focuses on the level of abstraction used to describe that behavior. One concerns the explanation; the other concerns how the event becomes a sentence.
Turn the trait back into an event
Find the verb, adjective, or noun doing the interpretive work. Then rewrite the sentence one level more concretely. “He is unreliable” becomes “He missed Tuesday’s deadline.” “They are generous” becomes “They donated to the fund.”
The concrete version is not automatically the better conclusion. It shows what evidence the broader label rests on. You can then ask whether the same number and kind of events would justify the same label for a member of another group.
Sources
- Maass, A., Salvi, D., Arcuri, L., & Semin, G. R. (1989). Language use in intergroup contexts: The linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 981–993.
- Maass, A. (1999). Linguistic intergroup bias: Stereotype perpetuation through language. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 79–121.
- Wenneker, C. P. J., Wigboldus, D. H. J., & Spears, R. (2005). Biased language use in stereotype maintenance: The role of encoding and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(4), 504–516.