Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Linguistic intergroup bias (LIB) is the tendency of speakers to describe the actions of individuals at different abstraction levels depending on the actor's group membership and the valence of the action. For example, imagine that you are watching your favorite basketball team and one of the players makes a slam dunk. A few minutes later, a member of the opposing team also dunks the ball. Would you describe these two actions in exactly the same way? What if the player's action was negative, such as committing a foul? Researchers have discovered that in addition to directly expressing our thoughts and feelings about other individuals (e.g., by labeling them as heroes or villains), we can use more subtle ways to convey our opinions, such as varying the verb tense we use in describing their behavior, choosing active versus passive voice, or shifting the abstraction level.

LIB is an example of the latter strategy. Positive ingroup behavior is described more abstractly (e.g., “I always told you that he is fantastic!”) than positive outgroup behavior (e.g., “Look, he managed to shoot a basket!”). In contrast, negative ingroup behavior is described more concretely (e.g., “Oh no, he pushed him accidentally!”) than negative outgroup behavior (e.g., “What a dirty player he is!”). Whereas a concrete description implies a single event with little or no consequence for future situations, abstract language suggests stable behavior that is likely to be repeated in the future. In this subtle way, the LIB leads to ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination.

This entry describes the theoretical context of LIB and examines its measurement, underlying mechanisms, and applications.

The Linguistic Category Model

The assumptions of the LIB are based on Semin and Fiedler's linguistic category model (LCM), which postulates an abstraction continuum with four different levels. For example, you can describe the same situation in the following ways: (1) the basketball player hits his opponent during the game, (2) the basketball player hurts his opponent during the game, (3) the basketball player hates his opponent, and (4) the basketball player is aggressive.

All four statements are accurate descriptions of the observed situation, yet they differ in abstraction. At the concrete end of the abstraction continuum are descriptive action verbs (e.g., hit), which provide an objective description of a single observable behavior. Descriptive action verbs are typically defined by at least one invariant physical feature of the action (e.g., one person hits another) and refer to a specific object (e.g., the opponent) and situation (e.g., the game).

Interpretative action verbs (e.g., hurt) represent the second abstraction level. They likewise refer to an observable behavior, but, in contrast to descriptive action verbs, they describe a more general class of behaviors. For instance, there are many different ways to hurt somebody, such as by hitting or by kicking the person, or by attacking him or her verbally. As a consequence, interpretative action verbs generally go beyond mere description, allowing different interpretations of a given situation.

State verbs (e.g., hate) represent the next abstraction level. They describe a lasting emotional or mental state, are interpretative and evaluative, and are independent of the specific action and context, but they maintain a reference to a specific object. In the example above, the basketball player hates his opponent outside the specific game and can express his feelings in many different ways.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading