People learn about social groups by reading and hearing verbal statements. We investigated if the perceived truth and acceptability of such statements depend on whether they are implicitly vs. explicitly comparative (e.g., “Women are brave” vs. “Women are braver than men”). Participants (Study 1: Ns = 259; Study 2: N = 246) rated the truth, acceptability, familiarity, and positivity of implicitly vs. explicitly comparative, stereotypical vs. counter-stereotypical statements about positive vs. negative features. Consistent with an Etiquette Hypothesis, implicitly (vs. explicitly) comparative statements about positive features were judged as truer and more acceptable, presumably because they adhered better to a positivity norm. Consistent with a Fluency Hypothesis, stereotypical explicitly (vs. implicitly) comparative statements about age groups were judged as truer, presumably because of higher ease-of-processing. Thus, mechanisms affecting judgments vary somewhat with the groups compared. We discuss the role of metacognitive and normative processes in stereotype maintenance and stereotype change.
BergsiekerH. B.LeslieL. M.ConstantineV. S.FiskeS. T. (2012). Stereotyping by omission: Eliminate the negative, accentuate the positive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1214–1238. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027717
BrownP. (2015). Politeness and language. In WrightJ. D. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (Vol. 18, pp. 326–330). Elsevier.
5.
BruckmüllerS.BraunM. (2020). One group’s advantage or another group’s disadvantage? How comparative framing shapes explanations of, and reactions to, workplace gender inequality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 39(4), 457–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X20932631
6.
CharnessG.GneezyU.KuhnM. A. (2012). Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.08.009
7.
ChasteenA. L.SchwarzN.ParkD. C. (2002). The activation of aging stereotypes in younger and older adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57(6), 540–547. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/57.6.p540
8.
CrandallC. S.EshlemanA.O'BrienL. (2002). Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.359
9.
CzoppA. M.MonteithM. J. (2003). Confronting prejudice (literally): Reactions to confrontations of racial and gender bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(4), 532–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202250923
10.
DechêneA.StahlC.HansenJ.WänkeM. (2009). The truth about the truth: A meta-analytic review of the truth effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 238–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309352251
11.
DoddsP. S.ClarkE. M.DesuS.FrankM. R.ReaganA. J.WilliamsJ. R.MitchellL.HarrisK. D.KloumannI. M.BagrowJ. P.MegerdoomianK.McMahonM. T.TivnanB. F.DanforthC. M. (2015). Human language reveals a universal positivity bias. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(8), 2389–2394. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1411678112
12.
DragojevicM.GilesH. (2016). I don't like you because you're hard to understand: The role of processing fluency in the language attitudes process. Human Communication Research, 42(3), 396–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12079
13.
DragojevicM.GilesH.BeckA.TatumN. T. (2017). The fluency principle: Why foreign accent strength negatively biases language attitudes. Communication Monographs, 84(3), 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1322213
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146
16.
FiedlerK.HarrisC.SchottM. (2018). Unwarranted inferences from statistical mediation tests—an analysis of articles published in 2015. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 75, 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.11.008
17.
FordB. R. (2017). Political correctness. In GilesH.HarwoodJ. (Eds.), The Oxford encyclopedia of intergroup communication (Vol. 2, pp. 219–232). Oxford University Press.
18.
FormanowiczM.HansenK. (2022). Subtle linguistic cues affecting gender in(equality). Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 41(2), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X211035170
19.
GawronskiB.WaltherE. (2008). The TAR effect: When the ones who dislike become the ones who are disliked. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(9), 1276–1289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208318952
20.
HaddockG. (2002). It’s easy to like or dislike Tony Blair: Accessibility experiences and the favourability of attitude judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 93(2), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712602162571
21.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
22.
HoggM.GilesH. (2012). Norm talk and identity in intergroup communication. In GilesH. (Ed.), The handbook of intergroup communication (pp. 373–387). Routledge.
23.
HoorensV. (2014). Positivity bias. In MichalosA. C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (Vol. 1, pp. 4938–4941). Springer Science + Business Media.
24.
HoorensV.BruckmüllerS. (2015). Less is more? Think again! A cognitive fluency-based more–less asymmetry in comparative communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(5), 753–766. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000032
25.
HoorensV.PandelaereM.OldersmaF.SedikidesC. (2012). The hubris hypothesis: You can self-enhance, but you’d better not show it. Journal of Personality, 80(5), 1237–1274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00759.x
26.
HummertM. L. (2012). Challenges and opportunities for communication between age groups. In GilesH. (Ed.), The handbook of intergroup communication (pp. 223–236). Routledge.
27.
KeilA.MussweilerT.EpstudeK. (2006). Alpha-band activity reflects reduction of mental effort in a comparison task: A source space analysis. Brain Research, 1121(1), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.08.118
28.
KervynN.BergsiekerH. B.FiskeS. T. (2012). The innuendo effect: Hearing the positive but inferring the negative. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.08.001
29.
KioumiE.GardikiotisA. (2023). Online intergroup contact and intergroup attitudes: A cross sectional and a longitudinal study of Greeks and Germans interacting on Twitter and Facebook. Psychology of Language and Communication, 27(1), 128–151. https://doi.org/10.58734/plc-2023-0007
30.
KramerH. J.GoldfarbD.TashjianS. M.Hansen LagattutaK. (2021). Dichotomous thinking about social groups: Learning about one group can activate opposite beliefs about another group. Cognitive Psychology, 129, 101408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101408
31.
LahamS. M.AlterA. L.GoodwinG. P. (2009). Easy on the mind, easy on the wrongdoer: Discrepantly fluent violations are deemed less morally wrong. Cognition, 112(3), 462–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.06.001
32.
LyonsA.KashimaY. (2003). How are stereotypes maintained through communication? The influence of stereotype sharedness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 989–1005. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.989
33.
MartinA. E.NorthM. S. (2022). Equality for (almost) all: Egalitarian advocacy predicts lower endorsement of sexism and racism, but not ageism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(2), 373–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000262
34.
MenegattiM.RubiniM. (2017). Gender bias and sexism in language. In GilesH.HarwoodJ. (Eds.), The Oxford encyclopedia of intergroup communication (Vol. 1, pp. 451–468). Oxford University Press.
35.
MooreD.KimT. (2003). Myopic social prediction and the solo comparison effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1121–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1121
36.
MotyK.RhodesM. (2021). The unintended consequences of the things we say: What generic statements communicate to children about unmentioned categories. Psychological Science, 32(2), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620953132
37.
MussweilerT.EpstudeK. (2009). Relatively fast! Efficiency advantages of comparative thinking. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 138(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014374
38.
NadarevicL.ReberR.HelmeckeA. J.KöseD. (2020). Perceived truth of statements and simulated social media postings: an experimental investigation of source credibility, repeated exposure, and presentation format. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00251-4
39.
NgR. (2021). Societal age stereotypes in the U.S. and U.K. from a media database of 1.1 billion words. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(16), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168822
40.
PeruginiM.GallucciM.CostantiniC. (2018). A practical primer to power analysis for simple experimental designs. International Review of Social Psychology, 31(1), 20–20. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.181
41.
ReberR. (2012). Processing fluency, aesthetic pleasure, and culturally shared taste. In PalmerS. E.ShimamuraA. P. (Eds.), Aesthetic science: Connecting minds, brains, and experience (pp. 223–249). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732142.001.0001
42.
ReberR.SchwarzN. (1999). Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition, 8(3), 338–342. https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.1999.0386
ReidS. A. (2012). Social psychological approaches to intergroup communication. In GilesH. (Ed.), The handbook of intergroup communication (pp. 19–30). Routledge.
45.
RothmanA. J.SchwarzN. (1998). Constructing perceptions of vulnerability: Personal relevance and the use of experiential information in health judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(10), 1053–1064. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672982410003
46.
SchollS.BlessH.GreifenederR. (2014). When fluency signals truth: Prior successful reliance on fluency moderates the impact of fluency on truth judgments. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 27(3), 268–280. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1805
47.
SchwarzN.JalbertM.NoahT.ZhangL. (2020). Metacognitive experiences as information: Processing fluency in consumer judgment and decision making. Consumer Psychology Review, 4(1), 4–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/arcp.1067
48.
ShermanJ. W.StroessnerS. J.ConreyF. R.AzamO. A. (2005). Prejudice and stereotype maintenance processes: Attention, attribution, and individuation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(4), 607–622. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.607
SkowronskiJ. J.CarlstonD. E.MaeL.CrawfordM. T. (1998). Spontaneous trait transference: Communicators take on the qualities they describe in others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 837–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.837
51.
SkylarkW. (2021). More is easier? Testing the role of fluency in the more-credible effect. Judgment and Decision Making, 16(3), 638–686. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.70979
UnkelbachC.GreifenederR. (2018). Experiential fluency and declarative advice jointly inform judgments of truth. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 78–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.06.010
54.
Van DammeC.DeschrijverE.Van GeertE.HoorensV. (2017). When praising yourself insults others: Self-superiority claims provoke aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(7), 1008–1019. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217703951
55.
Van DammeC.HoorensV.SedikidesC. (2016). Why self-enhancement provokes dislike: The hubris hypothesis and the aversiveness of explicit self-superiority claims. Self and Identity, 15(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2015.1095232
56.
WestK.HewstoneM. (2012). Relatively socially acceptable prejudice within and between societies. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 22(3), 269–282. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.1112
57.
WilsonD.SperberD. (2004). Relevance theory. In HornL. R.WardG. (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Blackwell.
58.
WindschitlP.KrugerJ.Nus SimmsE. (2003). The influence of egocentrism and focalism on people's optimism in competitions: When what affects us equally affects me more. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 389–408. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.389
WoodzickaJ. A.MallettR. K.HendricksS.PruittA. V. (2015). It’s just a (sexist) joke: comparing reactions to sexist versus racist communications. Humor, 28(2), 289–309. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2015-0025
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.
