Agency is a basic dimension of evaluations of social groups. More agency is assigned to in-groups than to out-groups, and verb intergroup bias (VIB) captures this tendency in language use. Four studies that performed large-scale quantitative analysis of natural language use, which covered more than 200 billion words, 20 countries, and various time spans, support the VIB model. Verbs, which are prototypically associated with actions, serve as agency indicators, and thus generic in-groups are more often described with verbs (we vs. they). Moreover, VIB is present in specific between-group comparisons: for Americans as an in-group reference and various out-groups (e.g., Mexicans, Russians, and Palestinians), as well as for Americans, Canadians, Britons, and Australians as in-group references and immigrants as a generic out-group. VIB is a useful tool in diagnosing intergroup discourses. Furthermore, VIB attests to the importance of analyzing language’s role in the formation and maintenance of social biases.
AbeleA. E.WojciszkeB. (2014). Communal and agentic content: A dual perspective model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 195–255. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-800284-1.00004-7
2.
AissenJ. (1999). Markedness and subject choice in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17, 673–711. doi:10.1023/A:1006335629372
3.
AlbarracínD.NoguchiK.FischlerI. (2011). The syntax of defection and cooperation: The effects of the implicit sentences nice act versus act nice on behavior change. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 298–305. doi:10.1177/1948550610389823
4.
AnolliL.ZurloniV.RivaG. (2010). Linguistic intergroup bias in political communication. The Journal of General Psychology, 133, 237–255. doi:10.3200/GENP.133.3.237-255
5.
BenorS. B.LevyR. (2006). The chicken or the egg? A probabilistic analysis of English binomials. Language, 82, 233–278. doi:10.1353/lan.2006.0077
6.
BianchiM.CarnaghiA.PiccoliV.StragàM.ZottiD. (2019). On the descriptive and expressive function of derogatory group labels: An experimental test. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 38, 756–772. doi:10.1177/0261927x19867739
7.
Bornkessel-SchlesewskyI.SchlesewskyM.von CramonD. Y. (2009). Word order and Broca’s region: Evidence for a supra-syntactic perspective. Brain and Language, 111, 125–139. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2009.09.004
8.
BrewerM. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.307
9.
BrownR.HewstoneM. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 255–343). Brooks-Cole. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37005-5
10.
BrownR.ZagefkaH. (2008). Ingroup affiliations and prejudice. In DovidioJ. F.GlickP.RudmanL. A. (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice (pp. 54–70). Wiley Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9780470773963.ch4
11.
CappaS. F.PulvermüllerF. (2012). Cortex special issue: Language and the motor system. Cortex, 48, 785–787. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2012.04.010
12.
CarnaghiA.MaassA. (2007). In-group and out-group perspectives in the use of derogatory group labels: Gay versus fag. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26, 142–156. doi:10.1177/0261927X07300077
13.
CarnaghiA.MaassA.GrestaS.BianchiM.CadinuM.ArcuriL. (2008). Nomina sunt omina: On the inductive potential of nouns and adjectives in person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 839–859. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.839
14.
CarreraP.MuñozD.CaballeroA.AguilarP.FernándezI.AlbarracínD. (2014). How verb tense affects the construal of action: The simple past tense leads people into an abstract mindset. Psicologica, 35, 209–223.
15.
CarreraP.MuñozD.CaballeroA.FernándezI.AlbarracínD. (2012). The present projects past behavior into the future while the past projects attitudes into the future: How verb tense moderates predictors of drinking intentions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1196–1200. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.04.001
16.
ChenH.CohenP.ChenS. (2010). How big is a big odds ratio? Interpreting the magnitudes of odds ratios in epidemiological studies. Communications in Statistics: Simulation and Computation, 39, 860–864. doi:10.1080/03610911003650383
17.
CoenenL. H. M.HedebouwL.SeminG. R. (2006). Measuring language abstraction: The linguistic category model.
18.
CollinsK. A.ClémentR. (2018). An inconclusive study comparing the effect of concrete and abstract descriptions of belief-inconsistent information. PLoS One, 13, 1–13. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0189570
19.
CooperW. E.RossJ. R. (1975). Word order. In GrossmanR. E.SanL. J.VanceT. J. (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on functionalism (pp. 63–111). Chicago Linguistic Society.
20.
CuddyA. J. C.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61–149. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0
DaviesM. (2013a). Corpus of Global Web-Based English: 1.9 billion words from speakers in 20 countries (GloWbE). Retrieved fromhttps://corpus.byu.edu/glowbe/
23.
DaviesM. (2013b). Corpus of News on the Web (NOW): 3+ billion words from 20 countries, updated every day. Retrieved fromhttps://corpus.byu.edu/now/
de HoopH.LamersM. (2006). Incremental distinguishability of subject and object. In KulikovL.MalchukovA.de SwartP. (Eds.), Case, valency and transitivity (pp. 269–287). John Benjamins
27.
DouglasK. M.SuttonR. M. (2003). Effects of communication goals and expectancies on language abstraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 682–696. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.682
28.
DouglasK. M.SuttonR. M.WilkinK. (2008). Could you mind your language? An investigation of communicators’ ability to inhibit linguistic bias. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 123–139. doi:10.1177/0261927X07313655
29.
DragojevicM.SinkA.MastroD. (2017). Evidence of linguistic intergroup bias in U.S. print news coverage of immigration. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36, 462–472. doi:10.1177/0261927X16666884
30.
DryerM. S. (2013). Order of subject, object and verb. In DryerM. S.HaspelmathM. (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Retrieved January 31, 2019, fromhttp://wals.info/chapter/81
31.
EsaulovaY.RealiC.Von StockhausenL. (2015). Influences of grammatical and stereotypical gender during reading: Eye movements in pronominal and noun phrase anaphor resolution. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 781–803. doi:10.1080/01690965.2013.794295
32.
FauseyC. M.BoroditskyL. (2010). Subtle linguistic cues influence perceived blame and financial liability. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 17, 644–650. doi:10.3758/PBR.17.5.644
33.
FerreiraF. (1994). Choice of passive voice is affected by verb type and animacy. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 715–736. doi:10.1006/jmla.1994.1034
34.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77–83. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005
35.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
36.
FormanowiczM.GoldenbergA.SaguyT.PietraszkiewiczA.WalkerM.GrossJ. J. (2018). Understanding dehumanization: The role of agency and communion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 77, 102–116. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2018.04.003
37.
FormanowiczM.RoesselJ.SuitnerC.MaassA. (2017). Verbs as linguistic markers of agency: The social side of grammar. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 566–579. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2231
38.
ForoniF.SeminG. R. (2009). Language that puts you in touch with your bodily feelings: The multimodal responsiveness of affective expressions. Psychological Science, 20, 974–980. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02400.x
39.
GarcíaA. M.BocanegraY.HerreraE.MorenoL.CarmonaJ.BaenaA.…IbáñezA. (2017). Parkinson’s disease compromises the appraisal of action meanings evoked by naturalistic texts. Cortex, 100, 111–126. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2017.07.003
40.
GarsideR. (1987). The CLAWS Word-tagging system. In GarsideR.LeechG.SampsonG. (Eds.), The computational analysis of English: A corpus-based approach. Longman.
41.
GelmanS. A. A.HeymanG. D. D. (1999). Carrot-eaters and creature-believers: The effects of lexicalization on children’s inferences about social categories. Psychological Science, 10, 489–493. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00194
42.
GeschkeD.SassenbergK.RuhrmannG.SommerD. (2007). Behavior speaks louder than traits: The impact of information abstractness and communication source on message reception. Journal of Psychology, 215, 248–254. doi:10.1027/0044-3409.215.4.248
43.
GilesH. (1978). Linguistic differentiation between ethnic groups. In TajfelH. (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 361–393). Academic Press.
44.
GorhamB. W. (2006). News media’s relationship with stereotyping: The linguistic intergroup bias in response to crime news. Journal of Communication, 56, 289–308. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00020.x
45.
GreenbergJ.PyszczynskiT. (1985). The effect of an overheard ethnic slur on evaluations of the target: How to spread a social disease. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 61–72. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(85)90006-X
46.
HegartyP.WatsonN.FletcherL.McQueenG. (2011). When gentlemen are first and ladies are last: Effects of gender stereotypes on the order of romantic partners’ names. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 21–35. doi:10.1348/014466610X486347
47.
IdanO.HalperinE.HameiriB.Reifen TagarM. (2018). A rose by any other name? A subtle linguistic cue impacts anger and corresponding policy support in intractable conflict. Psychological Science, 29, 972–983. doi:10.1177/0956797618772823
48.
IrelandM. E.MehlM. R. (2014). Natural language use as a marker of personality. In HoltgravesT. M. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of language and social psychology. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199838639.013.034
49.
Johnson-GreyK. M.BoghratiR.WakslakC. J.DehghaniM. (2019). Measuring abstract mind-sets through syntax: Automating the linguistic category model. Social Psychological and Personality Science. doi:10.1177/1948550619848004
50.
KochA.ImhoffR.DotschR.UnkelbachC.AlvesH. (2016). The ABC of stereotypes about groups: Agency/socioeconomic success, conservative-progressive beliefs, and communion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 675–709. doi:10.1037/pspa0000046
51.
MaassA.ArcuriL.SuitnerC. (2014). Shaping intergroup relations through language. In HoltgravesT. M. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 157–176). Oxford University Press.
52.
MaassA.CeccarelliR.RudinS. (1996). Linguistic intergroup bias: Evidence for in-group-protective motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 512–526. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.512
53.
MaassA.MilesiA.ZabbiniS.StahlbergD. (1995). Linguistic intergroup bias: Differential expectancies or in-group protection?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 116–126. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.116
54.
MaassA.SalviD.ArcuriL.SeminG. R. (1989). Language use in intergroup contexts: The linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 981–993. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.981
55.
MaderaJ. M.HeblM. R.MartinR. C. (2009). Gender and letters of recommendation for academia: Agentic and communal differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1591–1599. doi:10.1037/a0016539
56.
McGuireW. J.McGuireC. V. (1992). Cognitive-versus-affective positivity asymmetries in thought systems. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 571–591.
57.
MichelJ.-B.ShenY. K.AidenA. P.VeresA.GrayM. K.PickettJ. P.…AidenE. L. (2010). Materials & methods for quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science, 331, 176–183. doi:10.1126/science.1199644
PennebakerJ. W.BeallS. K. (1986). Confronting a traumatic event: Toward an understanding of inhibition and disease. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 274–281. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.95.3.274
60.
PietraszkiewiczA.FormanowiczM.Gustafsson SendénM.BoydR. L.SikströmS.SczesnyS. (2019). The big two dictionaries: Capturing agency and communion in natural language. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 871–887. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2561
61.
RhodesM.LeslieS. J.YeeK. M.SaundersK. (2019). Subtle linguistic cues increase girls’ engagement in science. Psychological Science, 30, 455–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618823670
62.
RikettaM.SacramentoC. A. (2008). “They cooperate with us, so they are like me”: Perceived intergroup relationship moderates projection from self to outgroups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 11, 115–131. doi:10.1177/1368430207084849
63.
Salès-WuilleminE.MasseL.UrdapilletaI.PullinW.KohlerC.GueraudS. (2014). Linguistic intergroup bias at school: An exploratory study of black and white children in France and their implicit attitudes toward one another. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 42, 93–103. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.06.002
64.
SchmidJ.FiedlerK. (1996). Language and implicit attributions in the Nuremberg trials: Analyzing prosecutors’ and defense attorneys’ closing speeches. Human Communication Research, 22, 371–398. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1996.tb00372.x
65.
SchmidJ.FiedlerK. (1998). The backbone of closing speeches: The impact of prosecution versus defense language on judicial attributions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1140–1172. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01672.x
66.
SchmidJ.FiedlerK.EnglichB.EhrenbergerT.SeminG. R. (1996). Taking sides with the defendant: Grammatical choice and the influence of implicit attributions in prosecution and defense speeches. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 12, 127–148. Retrieved fromhttp://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/handle/1871/8245
67.
SczesnyS.FormanowiczM. M.MoserF. (2016). Can gender-fair language reduce gender stereotyping and discrimination?Frontiers in Psychology, 7. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00025
68.
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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.558
69.
SeminG. R.Gil de MontesL.ValenciaJ. F. (2003). Communication constraints on the linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 142–148. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00523-1
70.
SimonL.GreenbergJ. (1996). Further progress in understanding the effects of derogatory ethnic labels: The role of preexisting attitudes toward the targeted group. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1195–1204.
71.
SuitnerC.MaassA. (2008). The role of valence in the perception of agency and communion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 1073–1082. doi:10.1002/ejsp.525
72.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. (1979). An integrative theory of inter-group conflict. In AustinW.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Brooks/Cole.
73.
TiplerC. N.RuscherJ. B. (2014). Agency’s role in dehumanization: Non-human metaphors of out-groups. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8, 214–228. doi:10.1111/spc3.12100
74.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36. doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03
75.
ViglioccoG.VinsonD. P.DruksJ.BarberH.CappaS. F. (2011). Nouns and verbs in the brain: A review of behavioural, electrophysiological, neuropsychological and imaging studies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 35, 407–426. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.04.007
76.
WaltonG. M.BanajiM. R. (2004). Being what you say: The effect of essentialist linguistic labels on preferences. Social Cognition, 22, 193–213. doi:10.1521/soco.22.2.193.35463
77.
WarrinerA. B.KupermanV.BrysbaertM. (2013). Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 1191–1207. doi:10.3758/s13428-012-0314-x
78.
WeingartenE.ChenQ.McAdamsM.YiJ.HeplerJ.AlbarracínD. (2016). From primed concepts to action: A meta-analysis of the behavioral effects of incidentally presented words. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 472–497. doi:10.1037/bul0000030
79.
WerkmanW. M.WigboldusD. H. J.SeminG. R. (1999). Children’s communication of the linguistic intergroup bias and its impact upon cognitive inferences. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 95–104.
80.
WojciszkeB.AbeleA. E.BarylaW. (2009). Two dimensions of interpersonal attitudes: Liking depends on communion, respect depends on agency. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 973–990.
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.
