Nav: Home

We infer a speaker's social identity from subtle linguistic cues

December 15, 2015

When we speak, we "leak" information about our social identity through the nuanced language that we use to describe others, according to new research in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science. This research shows that people can infer a speaker's social identity (e.g., political party affiliation) from how the speaker uses abstract or concrete terms to describe someone else's behavior.

"Our findings show that language is a powerful tool for communication, not just in the traditional sense, but also in this more implicit, subtle manner," explains lead researcher Shanette Porter of the University of Chicago. "Two people can use strikingly similar words but convey very different messages about their beliefs about others, their attitudes toward others and, as we find in the present research, who they are."

Prior research has shown that people express beliefs, values, and stereotypes about others through subtleties in the way they use language - that is, they communicate not only through what they say, but how they say it.

Describing a person's behavior concretely, using action verbs - for example, "Sam hit her friend" - typically signals that the behavior is a one-time occurrence and not necessarily characteristic of that person. Describing someone's behavior using adjectives and nouns, on the other hand - for example, "Sam is violent" - comes across as more abstract and suggests that the behavior may reflect a personal trait.

Prior research has also demonstrated that we tend to use these linguistic subtleties in a favorable way when we're talking about people who belong to the same group as us: We're likely to use abstract language in discussing their desirable behaviors and concrete language in describing their undesirable behaviors. If we're talking about someone from another group, however, the pattern reverses - we tend to use concrete language to describe positive behaviors, and abstract language to describe negative ones.

Porter and colleagues hypothesized that people can pick up on these linguistic nuances, and use them to identify whether a speaker is likely to share a group membership with the person he or she is talking about.

In one online study, the researchers asked participants to "imagine that someone is communicating with you about a man named Peter." For half of the participants, it was implied that Peter was a Democrat, and for the other half, it was implied that Peter was a Republican.

All participants were then asked to read a passage in which an unknown speaker described Peter's helping and rude behavior. Some participants read a statement in which the speaker described Peter's helping behavior in abstract terms (e.g., "On one occasion, there is a person in a wheelchair who needs assistance getting up a ramp. Peter reaches for the handles of the wheelchair. Peter is helpful.") and his rude behavior in concrete terms. Other participants read a statement in which the speaker described Peter's helping behavior in concrete terms (e.g., "On one occasion, there is a person in a wheelchair who needs assistance getting up a ramp. Peter reaches for the handles of the wheelchair. Peter pushes the wheelchair up the ramp.") and his rude behavior in abstract terms.

The results showed that participants were sensitive to these linguistic cues. Those who read about Peter's desirable behavior in abstract terms (and undesirable behavior in concrete terms) were more likely to believe that the speaker and Peter were part of the same social group than were participants who read about Peter's helping behavior in concrete terms (and rude behavior in abstract terms).

These findings emerged regardless of whether participants believed Peter's social identity was Democratic or Republican. In another study, the researchers found the same pattern of results for Christian group affiliation.

And additional findings revealed that when these linguistic cues were available, participants used them to determine speakers' social group identity, even when they weren't explicitly asked to make such a categorization.

Importantly, there was no evidence that participants' own political, religious, or other group affiliations had an impact on their categorizations of the speakers' social group membership. But the data did show a trend suggesting that participants' own group affiliations influenced whether they liked the speaker.

According to Porter, these findings have implications for those interested in persuasion:

"The interplay between a communicator's language and audience members' social identities is an important issue for marketers, politicians, anyone who wants to persuade a person or group of people."

But the research has relevance for anyone who uses language to communicate, says Porter:

"It may be useful for any of us to know that when we write or speak, our audience perceives a great deal of information from very small variations in the way in which something is communicated."
Co-authors on the study include Michelle Rheinschmidt-Same and Jennifer A. Richeson of Northwestern University.

This work was supported by a fellowship from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and a grant from the National Science Foundation (BCS-0921728), both awarded to J. A. Richeson.

All data have been made publicly available via Open Science Framework and can be accessed at The complete Open Practices Disclosure for this article can be found at This article has received the badge for Open Data. More information about the Open Practices badges can be found at and

For more information about this study, please contact: Shanette Porter at

The article abstract are available online:

The APS journal Psychological Science is the highest ranked empirical journal in psychology. For a copy of the article "Inferring Identity From Language: Linguistic Intergroup Bias Informs Social Categorization" and access to other Psychological Science research findings, please contact Anna Mikulak at 202-293-9300 or

Association for Psychological Science

Related Language Articles:

The world's most spoken language is...'Terpene'
If you're small, smells are a good way to stand out.
Study analyzes what 'a' and 'the' tell us about language acquisition
A study co-authored by an MIT professor suggests that experience is an important component of early-childhood language usage although it doesn't necessarily account for all of a child's language facility.
Why do people switch their language?
Due to increasing globalization, the linguistic landscape of our world is changing; many people give up use of one language in favor of another.
Discovering what shapes language diversity
A research team led by Colorado State University is the first to use a form of simulation modeling to study the processes that shape language diversity patterns.
'Speaking my language': Method helps prepare teachers of dual language learners
Researchers at Lehigh University, led by L. Brook Sawyer and Patricia H.
The brain watched during language learning
Researchers from Nijmegen, the Netherlands, have for the first time captured images of the brain during the initial hours and days of learning a new language.
'Now-or-never bottleneck' explains language acquisition
We are constantly bombarded with linguistic input, but our brains are unable to remember long strings of linguistic information.
The secret language of microbes
Social microbes often interact with each other preferentially, favoring those that share certain genes in common.
A programming language for living cells
New language lets MIT researchers design novel biological circuits.
Syntax is not unique to human language
Human communication is powered by rules for combining words to generate novel meanings.

Related Language Reading:

Best Science Podcasts 2019

We have hand picked the best science podcasts for 2019. Sit back and enjoy new science podcasts updated daily from your favorite science news services and scientists.
Now Playing: TED Radio Hour

Climate Crisis
There's no greater threat to humanity than climate change. What can we do to stop the worst consequences? This hour, TED speakers explore how we can save our planet and whether we can do it in time. Guests include climate activist Greta Thunberg, chemical engineer Jennifer Wilcox, research scientist Sean Davis, food innovator Bruce Friedrich, and psychologist Per Espen Stoknes.
Now Playing: Science for the People

#527 Honey I CRISPR'd the Kids
This week we're coming to you from Awesome Con in Washington, D.C. There, host Bethany Brookshire led a panel of three amazing guests to talk about the promise and perils of CRISPR, and what happens now that CRISPR babies have (maybe?) been born. Featuring science writer Tina Saey, molecular biologist Anne Simon, and bioethicist Alan Regenberg. A Nobel Prize winner argues banning CRISPR babies won’t work Geneticists push for a 5-year global ban on gene-edited babies A CRISPR spin-off causes unintended typos in DNA News of the first gene-edited babies ignited a firestorm The researcher who created CRISPR twins defends...