Abstract language about groups encodes subtle biases favoring ingroups over outgroups

Evidence

The more abstract statements may imply greater stability over time and greater generalizability across settings. Thus, on the one hand, “we are helpful” conveys a consistent, predictable, positive attribute of the ingroup, and ingroup members could be expected to show related helpful behaviors like sharing resources or providing useful information. On the other hand, “they are aggressive” conveys a consistent, predictable negative attribute of the outgroup, and outgroup members could be expected to show related aggressive behaviors like kicking or hitting. Such dispositional inferences about positive attributes for the ingroup or negative attributes for the outgroup provide a subtle means of enhancing the ingroup and derogating the outgroup (von Hippel, Sekaquaptewa, & Vargas, 1997). The linguistic intergroup bias effect reflects an intriguing approach to the linguistic transmission and maintenance of intergroup hostilities. This effect is reinforced by general tendencies regarding the attribution for positive or negative behavior by an ingroup member or outgroup member: Ingroup members’ positive outcomes tend to be attributed to internal, stable causes and their negative outcomes to unstable, external causes, whereas outgroup members’ negative outcomes tend to be attributed to internal causes, and their positive outcomes to external causes (Hewstone, 1990). — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1288

Categorization

• SHARE: This linguistic intergroup bias is a classic social psychology finding a sociolinguist or cognitive-linguistics friend would enjoy — the grammatical abstraction gradient as backdoor discrimination.
• XREF: connects to: An ideological square of emphasis and de-emphasis structures group discourse — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1064