Tracing the boundaries of freedom of expression is a matter of wide societal and academic import—especially, as these boundaries encroach on the politics of inclusion. Yet, the elements that constitute offensive speech and determine its legal status remain poorly defined. In two studies, we examined how lay judges evaluate the offensiveness of apparently descriptive statements. Replicating prior work, we found that non-linguistic features (including speaker intent and outcomes on the audience) modulated the statements’ meaning. The speaker’s identity—and, in particular, their membership in the target group—independently influenced evaluations of offensive speech among conservatives and progressives alike. When asked to disclose their abstract principles, or jointly evaluate two contrastive cases, participants tended to deny the relevance of identity while primarily endorsing the intent principle. Taken together, our findings confirm that assessments of offensive speech are governed by contextual features, some of which are not introspectively deemed relevant.
AdlerN. E.EpelE. S.CastellazzoG.IckovicsJ. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586–592.
2.
AlterA. L.AronsonJ.DarleyJ. M.RodriguezC.RubleD. N. (2010). Rising to the threat: Reducing stereotype threat by reframing the threat as a challenge. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 166–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.09.014
3.
AyalaS. (2016). Speech affordances: A structural take on how much we can do with our words. European Journal of Philosophy, 24(4), 879–891.
4.
AyalaS. (2018). A structural explanation of injustice in conversations: It’s about norms. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 99, 726–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12244
5.
BakerC. L.SaxeR.TenenbaumJ. B. (2009). Action understanding as inverse planning. Cognition, 113(3), 329–349.
6.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
7.
CarlsmithK. M.DarleyJ. M.RobinsonP. H. (2002). Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(2), 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.284
Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas. (2019). CIS Survey Number 3269: December Barometer. Post-electoral General Elections. http://www.analisis.cis.es/cisdb.jsp
10.
CrandallC. S.FergusonM. A.BahnsA. J. (2013). When we see prejudice: The normative window and social change. In StangorC.CrandallC. S. (Eds.), Frontiers of social psychology. Stereotyping and prejudice (pp. 53–69). Psychology Press.
11.
CroomA. M. (2011). Slurs. Language Science, 33, 343–358.
12.
CushmanF. (2008). Crime and punishment: Distinguishing the roles of causal and intentional analyses in moral judgment. Cognition, 108, 353–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.03.006
13.
CushmanF.DreberA.WangY.CostaJ. (2009). Accidental outcomes guide punishment in a “Trembling Hand” game. PLOS ONE, 4, Article e6699. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006699
14.
De KeersmaeckerJ.BostynD. H.Van HielA.RoetsA. (2020). Disliked but free to speak: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech for groups across the ideological spectrum. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12, 34–41.
15.
DovidioJ. F.KawakamiK.GaertnerS. L. (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), 62–68. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.62
16.
EfronB.TibshiraniR. J. (1994). An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall.
17.
EpsteinL.ParkerC. M.SegalJ. A. (2018). Do justices defend the speech they hate?Journal of Law and Courts, 6(2), 237–262.
18.
FasoliF.CarnaghiA.PaladinoM. P. (2015). Social acceptability of sexist derogatory and sexist objectifying slurs across contexts. Language Science, 52, 98–107.
19.
FernbachP. M.RogersT.FoxC. R.SlomanS. A. (2013). Political extremism is supported by an illusion of understanding. Psychological Science, 24(6), 939–946.
GalinskyA. D.WangC. S.WhitsonJ. A.AnicichE. M.HugenbergK.BodenhausenG. V. (2013). The reappropriation of stigmatizing labels: The reciprocal relationship between power and self-labeling. Psychological Science, 24(10), 2020–2029.
23.
GibsonJ. L.EpsteinL.MagarianG. P. (2019). Taming uncivil discourse. Political Psychology, 41, 383–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12626
24.
GinoF.MooreD. A.BazermanM. H. (2008). No harm, no foul: The outcome bias in ethical judgments (Working Paper No. 08-080). Harvard Business School.
25.
GoodwinJ. [Goodwin MJ]. (2020, February8). More than 3 million EU nationals have applied to stay in the UK. 90% now have the right to Remain. Just 6 applications rejected (due to criminality). Intolerant Britain? Hmm [Tweet]. https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1226087204453310464
26.
GrayK.WegnerD. M. (2008). The sting of intentional pain. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1260–1262.
27.
GreeneJ. D.CushmanF. A.StewartL. E.LowenbergK.NystromL. E.CohenJ. D. (2009). Pushing moral buttons: The interaction between personal force and intention in moral judgment. Cognition, 111(3), 364–371.
28.
HaidtJ. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814
29.
HannikainenI. R. (2019). Ideology between the lines: Lay inferences about scientists’ values and motives. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(6), 832–841.
HoltgravesT. (1994). Communication in context: Effects of speaker status on the comprehension of indirect requests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(5), 1205–1218. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0278-7393.20.5.1205
32.
HoltgravesT.SrullT. K.SocallD. (1989). Conversation memory: The effects of speaker status on memory for the assertiveness of conversation remarks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.149
33.
HornseyM. J.ImaniA. (2004). Criticizing groups from the inside and the outside: An identity perspective on the intergroup sensitivity effect. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(3), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203261295
34.
HseeC. K.LoewensteinG. F.BlountS.BazermanM. H. (1999). Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(5), 576–590.
35.
HseeC. K.ZhangJ. (2004). Distinction bias: Misprediction and mischoice due to joint evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(5), 680–695.
36.
JayT.JanschewitzK. (2008). The pragmatics of swearing. Journal of Politeness Research Language, Behaviour, Culture, 4, 267–328. https://doi.org/10.1515/JPLR.2008.013
37.
JeffriesC. H.HornseyM. J.SuttonR. M.DouglasK. M.BainP. G. (2012). The David and Goliath principle: Cultural, ideological, and attitudinal underpinnings of the normative protection of low-status groups from criticism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1053–065. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212444454
38.
JeshionR. (2013). Slurs and stereotypes. Analytic Philosophy, 54(3), 314–329.
39.
JohnsonP. O.FayL. C. (1950). The Johnson-Neyman technique, its theory and application. Psychometrika, 15, 349–367.
LangtonR. (2012). Beyond belief: Pragmatics in hate speech and pornography. In McGowanM. K.MaitraI. (Eds.), Speech and harm: Controversies over free speech (pp. 72–93). Oxford University Press.
42.
LangtonR. (2018). The authority of hate speech. In GardnerJ.GreenL.LeiterB. (Eds.), Oxford studies in philosophy of law (Vol. 3, pp. 123–152). Oxford University Press.
43.
LeetsL. (2002). Experiencing hate speech: Perceptions and responses to Anti-Semitism and antigay speech. Journal of Social Issues, 58(2), 341–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00264
44.
LeetsL.GilesH. (2006). Words as weapons—When do they wound? Investigations of harmful speech. Human Communication Research, 24(2), 260–301.
MalleB. F. (1999). How people explain behavior: A new theoretical framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0301_2
49.
McGowanM. K. (2012). On “Whites only” signs and racist hate speech: Verbal acts of racial discrimination. In McGowanM. K.MaitraI. (Eds.), Speech and harm: Controversies over free speech (pp. 121–157). Oxford University Press.
50.
McGowanM. K. (2018). On covert exercitives speech and the social world. In FogalD.HarrisD.MossM. (Eds.), New works on speech acts (pp. 185–201). Oxford University Press.
MillerD. T.EffronD. A. (2010). Psychological license: When it is needed and how it functions. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 115–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(10)43003-8
53.
NisbettR.WilsonT. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–259.
54.
O’DeaC. J.MillerS. S.AndresE. B.RayM. H.TillD. F.SaucierD. A. (2015). Out of bounds: Factors affecting the perceived offensiveness of racial slurs. Language Science, 52, 155–164.
55.
PaulhusD. L.ReidD. B. (1991). Enhancement and denial in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.307
56.
RozenblitL.KeilF. (2002). The misunderstood limits of folk science: An illusion of explanatory depth. Cognitive Science, A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26(5), 521–562.
57.
SaulJ. (2018). Dogwhistles, political manipulation and philosophy of language. In FogalD.HarrisD.MossM. (Eds.), New works on speech acts (pp. 360–383). Oxford University Press.
58.
SchmidtF. L.HunterJ. E. (1996). Measurement error in psychological research: Lessons from 26 research scenarios. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 199–223.
59.
SimonsD. J.ShodaY.LindsayD. S. (2017). Constraints on Generality (COG): A proposed addition to all empirical papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 12(6), 1123–1128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617708630
60.
StanleyJ. (2015). How propaganda works. Princeton University Press.
61.
StruchinerN.De AlmeidaG. D. F.HannikainenI. R. (2020). Legal decision-making and the abstract/concrete paradox. Cognition, 205, 104421.
62.
SwimJ. K.ScottE. D.SechristG. B.CampbellB.StangorC. (2003). The role of intent and harm in judgments of prejudice and discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 944–959. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.944
63.
TarmanC.SearsD. (2005). The conceptualization and measurement of symbolic racism. The Journal of Politics, 67(3), 731–761.
64.
Van de VondervoortJ. W.HamlinJ. K. (2018). Preschoolers focus on others’ intentions when forming sociomoral judgments. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1851. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01851
65.
WaltersS. J.CampbellS. J. (2004). The use of bootstrap methods for analysing health-related quality of life outcomes (particularly the SF-36). Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2(70). https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-2-70
YoungL.CushmanF.HauserM.SaxeR. (2007). The neural basis of the interaction between theory of mind and moral judgment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 8235–8240. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701408104
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
