No abstract

No abstract

Using generic language to describe groups (applying characteristics to an entire category) is ubiquitous and impacts how children and adults categorize others. Five-year-olds, 8-year-olds, and adults (N=190) learned about a novel social group that separated into two factions (citizens and non-citizens). Non-citizens were described in either generic or specific language. Later, children and adults categorized individuals in two contexts: criminal (those participants labeled as non-citizens faced jail and deportation) and non-criminal (no consequences). Language genericity altered decision making. Participants in the specific (versus generic) language condition: (1) reduced their identification rate of potential non-citizens when judgments resulted in criminal penalties compared with no consequences; (2) required a greater amount of matching evidence to identify potential non-citizens (preponderance standard); and (3) reported less certainty about their judgments. Thus, generic language encourages children and adults to categorize individuals using a lower evidentiary standard regardless of negative consequences for presumed social group membership.