Two survey experiments examined how linguistic intergroup bias (LIB) varies according to ethnic identification within a homogenous ethnic group (Hong Kong citizens). Study 1 showed that Hong Kong citizens who identified as “Hongkonger” used more abstract expressions to describe prosocial behaviors of the in-group (Hong Kong citizen) and antisocial behaviors of the out-group (Mainland Chinese); those who identified as “Chinese” exhibited less LIB. Study 2 found similar results for a context based on location of behaviour (in Hong Kong vs. in China) rather than the nationality of the protagonist. The combined evidence suggests that LIB can have an important intragroup as well as intergroup dimension.
MaE. K. W.FungA. Y. H. (2007). Negotiating local and national identifications: Hong Kong identity surveys 1996-2006. Asian Journal of Communication, 17, 172-185.
5.
MaassA.CeccarelliR.RudinS. (1996). Linguistic intergroup bias: Evidence for in-group-protective motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 512-526.
6.
MaassA.SalviD.ArcuriL.SeminG. (1989). Language use in intergroup contexts: The linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 981-993.
7.
MathewsG.MaE. K. W.LuiT. L. (Eds.). (2008). Hong Kong, China: Learning to belong to a nation. London, England: Routledge.
8.
McGartyC. (2001). Social identity theory does not maintain that identification produces bias, and Self-categorization Theory does not maintain that salience is identification: Two comments on Mummendey, Klink and Brown. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 173-176.
9.
MoscatelliS.AlbarelloF.RubiniM. (2008). Linguistic discrimination in minimal groups: The impact of status differentials. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 140-154.
10.
NgS. H.ChanK. K. (1996). Biases in the description of various age groups: A linguistic category model analysis. Bulletin of the Hong Kong Psychological Society, 36/37, 5-20.
11.
PerreaultS.BourhisR. Y. (1999). Ethnocentrism, social identification, and discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 92-103.
12.
Pew Research Center. (2013). Second-Generation Americans: A portrait of the adult children of immigrants. Washington, DC: Author.
13.
ReidS. A. (2012). Social psychological approaches to intergroup communication. In GilesH. (Ed.), The handbook of intergroup communication (pp. 19-30). New York, NY: Routledge.
14.
SeminG. R.FiedlerK. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 558-568.
15.
ShulmanJ. L.ClémentR. (2008). Expressing prejudice through the linguistic intergroup bias: Second language confidence and identity among minority group members. Diversité Urbaine, 109-130.
16.
ShulmanJ. L.CollinsK. A.ClémentR. (2011). In consideration of social context: Re-examining the linguistic intergroup bias paradigm. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 4, 310-332.
17.
SuttonR. M.DouglasK. M. (2008). Celebrating two decades of linguistic bias research: An introduction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 105-109.
18.
TerryD. J.HoggM. A. (1996). Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship: A role for group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 776-793.
19.
TurnerJ. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization theories. In EllemersN.SpearsR.DoosjeB. (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 6-34). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
20.
TurnerJ. C.HoggM. A.OakesP. J.ReicherS. D.WetherellM. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
