Whose Words Hurt? Contextual Determinants of Offensive Speech

Abstract

Tracing the boundaries of freedom of expression is a matter of wide societal and academic import—especially, as these boundaries encroach on the politics of inclusion. Yet, the elements that constitute offensive speech and determine its legal status remain poorly defined. In two studies, we examined how lay judges evaluate the offensiveness of apparently descriptive statements. Replicating prior work, we found that non-linguistic features (including speaker intent and outcomes on the audience) modulated the statements’ meaning. The speaker’s identity—and, in particular, their membership in the target group—independently influenced evaluations of offensive speech among conservatives and progressives alike. When asked to disclose their abstract principles, or jointly evaluate two contrastive cases, participants tended to deny the relevance of identity while primarily endorsing the intent principle. Taken together, our findings confirm that assessments of offensive speech are governed by contextual features, some of which are not introspectively deemed relevant.

When is Self-Labeling Seen as Reclaiming? The Role of User and Observer's Sexual Orientation in Processing Homophobic and Category Labels’ use

“…Users’ identity plays an important role in language perception (Jay & Janschewitz, 2008). Both the users’ identity and their intentions affect the perception of their message's offensiveness and acceptability (Almagro et al, 2022; O’Dea et al, 2015), and identity is often taken as an indicator of intent (Gibson et al, 2020). For instance, sexist slurs targeting a woman are perceived as more offensive when used by a man than a woman (Fasoli et al, 2015).…”

Moral appraisals guide intuitive legal determinations.

“…CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit. judgments are also influenced by the agent's mental state (Almagro et al, 2022;Kirfel & Phillips, 2023). Offenses that are carried out intentionally elicit stronger disapproval than those same offenses brought about accidentally (Young et al, 2010)-a distinction that is reflected in the law's definition of mens rea as a formal element of serious crime (Gardner, 1993).…”

“…Our first four studies examined the effects of moralization arising from a consideration of outcome value: the manipulation of purpose violation contrasted cases in which either a bad or a neutral outcome ensues (e.g., when the floors get dirty vs. stay clean in the context of a “no shoes in the house” rule). It is known, however, that moral judgments are also influenced by the agent’s mental state (Almagro et al, 2022; Kirfel & Phillips, 2023). Offenses that are carried out intentionally elicit stronger disapproval than those same offenses brought about accidentally (Young et al, 2010)—a distinction that is reflected in the law’s definition of mens rea as a formal element of serious crime (Gardner, 1993).…”

Behavioral consequences of intergroup sensitivity

“…Moreover, Almagro et al. (2021) found that participants were not even aware of the influence that group membership had on their responses, indicating that the processes underlying the ISE may operate with limited conscious awareness (cf. Thürmer, Bieleke et al., 2020).…”

“…Future research could explore additional processes more systematically, such as experienced threat (Ditrich et al, 2022), group-based emotions (Goldenberg et al, 2014), or the specific individual, relational, and collective motives known to cause defensive behaviors (Biddlestone et al, 2021). Moreover, Almagro et al (2021) found that participants were not even aware of the influence that group membership had on their responses, indicating that the processes underlying the ISE may operate with limited conscious awareness (cf. Thürmer, Bieleke et al, 2020).…”