Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T09:18:36.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language Use and Stereotyping: the Role of Approach and Avoidance Motivation Goals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Lorena Gil de Montes ,
Garbiñe Ortiz ,
José F. Valencia ,
Maider Larrañaga  and
Arrate Agirrezabal
Lorena Gil de Montes
Affiliation:
Universidad del País Vasco (Spain)
Garbiñe Ortiz
Affiliation:
Universidad del País Vasco (Spain)
José F. Valencia*
Affiliation:
Universidad del País Vasco (Spain)
Maider Larrañaga
Affiliation:
Universidad del País Vasco (Spain)
Arrate Agirrezabal
Affiliation:
Universidad del País Vasco (Spain)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jose Francisco Valencia. Avda. de Tolosa, 70, 20018 - San Sebastian (Spain). Phone: +34-943015680. Fax: +34-943015670. E-mail: pspvagaj@ss.ehu.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The use of more abstract language to describe expected behaviors as opposed to unexpected behaviors has traditionally been considered a way of stereotype maintenance. This tendency is known as linguistic expectancy bias. Two experiments examined the influence of approach and avoidance motivational orientations on the production of this linguistic expectancy bias. It was predicted that approach strategic orientation is likely to describe expectancy consistent behaviors at a higher level of linguistic abstraction than expectancy inconsistent behaviors. In contrast, avoidance strategic orientation is likely to describe both expectancy consistent behaviors and expectancy inconsistent behaviors at a lower level of linguistic abstraction, thus facilitating the disappearance of linguistic expectancy bias. Two experiments confirmed these expectations, using strategic orientation manipulations based either on communication goals or on motor action, and measuring linguistic abstraction either on forced-choice answer format or on free descriptions. Implications for the generalisation of linguistic expectancy bias are discussed.

El uso de un lenguaje más abstracto para describir los comportamientos congruentes con las expectativas que los comportamientos incongruentes con las expectativas es una forma de mantener los estereotipos. Esta tendencia se conoce como el sesgo lingüístico de expectativa. Dos experimentos analizan la influencia de las orientaciones motivacionales de aproximación y evitación en la producción del sesgo lingüístico de expectativa. Se predijo que la orientación estratégica de aproximación promovería que comportamientos consistentes con la expectativa se describiesen con un mayor nivel de abstracción lingüística que los comportamientos inconsistentes con la expectativa. En cambio, la orientación estratégica de evitación induciría a que tanto los comportamientos consistentes como los inconsistentes con las expectativas se describiesen a un menor nivel de abstracción, facilitando con ello la desaparición del sesgo lingüístico de expectativa. Los dos experimentos que se presentan confirmaron dichas predicciones utilizando manipulaciones de orientación estratégica de aproximación y evitación formuladas en forma de metas comunicativas y en forma de acción motora. Además, se midió la abstracción lingüística tanto en formato de respuesta de elección múltiple como en descripción libre. El artículo debate las implicaciones de los estudios para la generalización del sesgo lingüístico de expectativa.

Keywords

linguistic abstractionexpectancy biascommunication goalsmotor actionabstracción lingüísticasesgo de expectativametas comunicativasacción motora
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , November 2012 , pp. 1210 - 1221
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beukeboom, C. J., & de Jong, E. M. (2008). When feelings speak: How affective and proprioceptive cues change language abstraction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 110–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F0261927X080270020301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beukeboom, C. J., & Semin, G. R. (2006). How mood turns on language. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 553–566. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jesp.2005.09.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brendl, C. M., & Higgins, E. T. (1996). Principles of judging valence: What makes events positive or negative? Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 95–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0065-2601%2808%2960237-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T., Priester, J. R., & Berntson, G. G. (1993). Rudimentary determinants of attitudes: Arm flexion and arm extension have differential effects on attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 5–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F%2F0022-3514.65.1.5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.67.2.319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2003). Effects of communication goals and expectancies on language abstraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 682–696. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.84.4.682CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M., & Wilkin, K. (2008). Could you mind your language? An investigation of communicators' ability to inhibit linguistic bias. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 123–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F0261927X07313655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, K., Semin, G. R., & Finkenauer, C. (1993). The battle of words between gender groups: A language-based approach to intergroup processes. Human Communication Research, 19, 409–441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1468-2958.1993.tb00308.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Förster, J., Grant, H., Idson, L. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Success/failure feedback, expectancies, and approach/ avoidance motivation: How regulatory focus moderates classic relations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 253–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006%2Fjesp.2000.1455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Förster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Idson, L. C. (1998). Approach and avoidance strength during goal attainment: Regulatory focus and the ‘goal looms larger’ effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1115–1131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F%2F0022-3514.75.5.1115CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Förster, J., & Strack, F. (1996). Influence of overt head movements on memory of valenced words: A case of conceptual-motor compatibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 421–430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F%2F0022-3514.71.3.421CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franco, F. M., & Maass, A. (1996). Implicit versus explicit strategies of out-group discrimination. The role of intentional control in biased language use and reward allocation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 335–359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F0261927X960153007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2000). The effects of approach and avoidance motor actions on the elements of creative insight. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 477–492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F%2F0022-3514.79.4.477CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2002). The influence of approach and avoidance motor actions on creative cognition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 41–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006%2Fjesp.2001.1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greitemeyer, T., & Weiner, B. (2003). Asymmetrical attributions for approach versus avoidance behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1371–1382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167203255766CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F%2F0003-066X.52.12.1280CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higgins, E. T. (1999). Promotion and prevention as a motivational duality: Implications for evaluative processes. In Chaiken, S. & Trope, Y. (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 503–525). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Maass, A., & Arcuri, L. (1992). The role of language in the persistence of stereotypes. In Semin, G. R. & Fiedler, K. (Eds.), Language, interaction and social cognition (pp. 129–143). London, England: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Maass, A., Ceccarelli, R., & Rudin, S. (1996). Linguistic intergroup bias: Evidence for in-group-protective motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 512–526. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.71.3.512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maass, A., Milesi, A., Zabbini, S., & Stahlberg, D. (1995). Linguistic intergroup bias: Differencial expectancies or in-group protection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 116–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F%2F0022-3514.68.1.116CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maass, A., Salvi, D., Arcuri, L., & Semin, G. (1989). Language use in intergroup contexts: The linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 981–993. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F%2F0022-3514.57.6.981CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mann, T., Sherman, D., & Updegraff, J. (2004). Dispositional motivations and message framing: A test of the congruency hypothesis in college students. Health Psychology, 23, 330–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0278-6133.23.3.330CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Priester, J. B., Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The influence of motor processes on attitudes toward novel versus familiar semantic stimuli. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 442–447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167296225002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothbart, M., & Park, B. (1986). On the confirmability and disconfirmability of trait concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 131–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F%2F0022-3514.50.1.131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruscher, J. B., & Duval, L. L. (1998). Multiple communicators with unique target information transmit less stereotypical impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 329–344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F%2F0022-3514.74.2.329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (1991). Happy and mindless, but sad and smart? The impact of affective states on analytic reasoning. In Forgas, J. P. (Ed.), Emotion and social judgments. International Series in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 55–71). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Schwarz, N., & Bohner, G. (1996). Feelings and their motivational implications. In Gollwitzer, P. M., & Bargh, J. A. (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 119–145). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1996). Feelings and phenomenal experiences. In Higgins, E. T. & Kruglanski, A. W. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 433–465). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Seibt, B., & Förster, J. (2004). Stereotype threat and performance. How self-stereotypes influence processing by inducing regulatory foci. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 38–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.87.1.38CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Semin, G. R. (1995). Interfacing language and social cognition. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 182–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F0261927X95141010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semin, G. R. (2000). Agenda 2000: Communication: Language as an implementational device for cognition. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 595–612. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002%2F1099-0992%28200009%2F10%2930%3A5%3C595%3A%3AAID-EJSP23%3E3.0.CO%3B2-A3.0.CO;2-A>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semin, G. R. (2004). The self-in-talk: Toward an analysis of interpersonal language and its use. In Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Prentice, D. (Eds.), Perspectivism in social psychology: The yin and yang of scientific progress (pp. 143–160). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 54, 558–568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.54.4.558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1991). The linguistic category model, its bases, applications and range. In Stroebe, W. & Hewstone, M. (Eds.), European review of social psychology (pp. 1–50). Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1992). The inferential properties of interpersonal verbs. In Semin, G. R. & Fiedler, K. (Eds.), Language, interaction and social cognition (pp. 58–78). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Semin, G. R., Gil de Montes, L., & Valencia, J. F. (2003). Communication constraints on the linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 142–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0022-1031%2802%2900523-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semin, G. R., Higgins, E. T., Gil de Montes, L., Estourget, Y., & Valencia, J. F. (2005). Linguistic signatures of regulatory focus: How abstraction fits promotion more than prevention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 36–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.89.1.36CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sherman, D. K., Mann, T., & Updegraff, J. A. (2006). Approach/ avoidance motivation, message framing, and health behavior: Understanding the congruency effect. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 165–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11031-006-9001-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strack, F., Martin, L. L., & Stepper, S. (1988). Inhibiting and facilitating conditions of facial expressions: A nonobstrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 768–777. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F%2F0022-3514.54.5.768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Updegraff, J. A., Gable, S. L., & Taylor, S. E. (2004). What makes experiences satisfying? The interaction of approach- avoidance motivations and emotions in well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 496–504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.86.3.496CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Prooijen, J., Karremans, J. C., & van Beest, I. (2006). Procedural justice and the hedonic principle: How approach versus avoidance motivation influences the psychology of voice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 686–697. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.91.4.686CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
von Hippel, W., Sekaquaptewa, D., & Vargas, P. (1997). The linguistic intergroup bias as an implicit indicator of prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 490–509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006%2Fjesp.1997.1332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenneker, C. P. J., Wigboldus, D. H. J., & Spears, R. (2005). Biased language use in stereotype maintenance: The role of encoding and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 504–516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.89.4.504CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wigboldus, D., Semin, G. R., & Spears, R. (2000). How do we communicate stereotypes? Linguistic bases and inferential consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 5–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.78.1.5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wyer, R. S., Clore, G. L., & Isbell, L. M. (1999). Affect and information processing. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 1–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0065-2601%2808%2960271-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar